The Title 42 immigration policy was a border enforcement measure the federal government used from March 2020 through May 11, 2023, invoking a 1944 public health statute to expel migrants at U.S. land borders within hours, without asylum screenings or immigration hearings. It ended when the COVID-19 public health emergency expired, was replaced by a new asylum rule and an app-based appointment system, and has since given way to a different enforcement framework under the current administration. The statute that enabled it, however, is still on the books.
What Title 42 Actually Did at the Border
The authority came from Section 265 of the Public Health Service Act of 1944, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 265, which lets the federal government prohibit the introduction of persons from designated countries when a communicable disease abroad threatens to spread into the United States.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 265 – Suspension of Entries and Imports From Designated Places to Prevent Spread of Communicable Diseases On March 20, 2020, the CDC Director issued an order citing that statute, and the next day Border Patrol began expelling people without giving them the chance to seek asylum.2U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Title 8 Enforcement Actions and Title 42 Expulsions
The defining feature was speed. Agents took basic biographical information, conducted minimal health screening, and moved the person back across the border, often the same day. There was no credible fear interview. No asylum officer. No immigration judge, no hearing, no removal order. Under standard Title 8 immigration law, anyone who expresses a fear of returning home must be referred to an asylum officer for evaluation. Under Title 42, that step simply did not happen. People were returned to Mexico across international bridges or flown to another country, sometimes not their country of origin but the last one they had crossed from.
Why an Expulsion Was Not a Deportation
A Title 42 expulsion was not a formal deportation, and that difference shaped how the policy played out. People who were expelled did not receive a removal order. The expulsion did not trigger the five-year re-entry bar that follows an expedited removal under Title 8, and it did not carry the criminal exposure that comes with reentering after a formal deportation.
The result was a strong incentive to try again. Before Title 42, roughly one in five single adults encountered at the border had been caught before. By 2022, that figure had climbed to nearly one in two. Among Mexican nationals and citizens of Central American countries, repeat crossing rates more than doubled during the policy’s early months.
CBP still collected biometrics and recorded each encounter, so someone expelled under Title 42 who later re-entered and was caught could, in theory, face criminal prosecution for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 USC 1326 – Reentry of Removed Aliens In practice, the vast majority of Title 42 expulsions did not lead to criminal charges.
Who Fell Under the Policy
Single adults were the largest group processed under Title 42 and faced the order’s restrictions almost without exception for the policy’s full duration. Family units were also subject to expulsion, though their treatment varied with operational capacity and the specific version of the order in effect.
Unaccompanied children were treated differently. The Biden administration exempted unaccompanied minors from Title 42 expulsions beginning in February 2021, and by August 2021 the CDC had formalized that carve-out in an updated order that continued expulsions generally.
Geographically, the order covered both the northern and southern land borders, but nearly all encounters occurred at the southern boundary. Mexican nationals and citizens of several Central American countries were the primary populations affected, largely because existing diplomatic arrangements allowed returns to Mexico. Citizens of more distant countries were sometimes swept in as well, depending on nationality, border location, and which version of the CDC order applied at the time.
The Legal Fight
The central legal question was whether Section 265 actually authorized expulsions at all. The statute lets the government prohibit the “introduction” of persons; critics argued that expelling someone already inside the country goes beyond that language.
In Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, the D.C. Circuit acknowledged the government’s authority to issue orders under Section 265 during a public health emergency but required an injunction preventing expulsions to countries where individuals would face persecution or torture.4Justia. Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas The case returned to the D.C. District Court on Administrative Procedure Act grounds, and in November 2022 the district court held the policy unlawful as arbitrary and capricious.
The fight over ending the policy was just as contested. When the Biden administration moved to wind Title 42 down, a group of states led by Arizona sought to intervene, arguing they would be harmed by increased migration. In late 2022, the Supreme Court granted a stay that kept the policy in place while litigation continued.5Supreme Court of the United States. Arizona v. Mayorkas The case was ultimately dismissed as moot after the public health emergency expired.
How and When It Ended
Title 42’s legal authority was tied to the existence of a public health emergency, so its end date was set by that declaration. The Department of Health and Human Services announced that the federal Public Health Emergency would expire on May 11, 2023, and the CDC withdrew the underlying orders on that date.6Office of Inspector General. OIG’s COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Flexibilities End on May 11, 2023 Upon Expiration of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Declaration At 11:59 p.m. that night, the authority to summarily expel migrants on health grounds ceased to exist.
Border agents returned to standard Title 8 procedures. That meant screening people who expressed a fear of returning to their home countries and, where appropriate, placing them in formal removal proceedings before an immigration judge.
What Replaced Title 42
The Biden administration did not simply revert to pre-pandemic processing. On the same day Title 42 ended, a new regulation called the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule took effect. It created a presumption that migrants who traveled through a third country to reach the United States were ineligible for asylum unless they had applied for and been denied asylum along the way, or had used the CBP One mobile app to schedule an appointment at a port of entry. Exceptions applied for medical emergencies, imminent threats to life, and trafficking.
The CBP One app became the practical center of the new system. Asylum seekers were expected to use it to schedule processing appointments at designated southern border ports of entry. At its peak, the system offered roughly 1,450 appointments per day across eight ports in Texas, California, and Arizona.7U.S. Customs and Border Protection. CBP One Appointments Increased to 1,450 Per Day Demand far outstripped supply, and long waits built up in Mexican border cities.
The stakes for crossing without authorization also rose. Under Title 8 processing, someone placed in expedited removal and ordered deported faces a five-year bar on re-entering, and illegal reentry after a formal removal carries criminal penalties under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 USC 1326 – Reentry of Removed Aliens Those were consequences Title 42 expulsions had not carried.
Where Things Stand in 2026
The framework built to replace Title 42 has been largely dismantled. On his first day in office in January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” which revoked several Biden-era immigration executive orders and directed the Department of Homeland Security to apply expedited removal more broadly.8The White House. Protecting the American People Against Invasion The order also restricted humanitarian parole to case-by-case decisions for individuals demonstrating “urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit.”
The same day, CBP removed the scheduling functionality from the CBP One app and canceled all existing appointments.9U.S. Customs and Border Protection. CBP Removes Scheduling Functionality in CBP One App The Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule was set to expire in May 2025 and lost most of its practical effect once the appointment system it relied on was shut down.
One thing has not changed. The underlying statute, 42 U.S.C. § 265, has not been amended since 1944.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 265 – Suspension of Entries and Imports From Designated Places to Prevent Spread of Communicable Diseases The authority that produced Title 42 is still available to any administration facing a future public health emergency serious enough to justify invoking it.