RAICES Bulletin: New (2026) Title 42 Order
By RAICES Public Affairs Director Javier Hidalgo, Esq.
TL;DR On May 18, 2026, the CDC used a regional Ebola outbreak to justify a new Title 42 order barring non-U.S. passport holders who have recently been in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Uganda, or South Sudan from entering the country. While medical experts and critics condemn the ban as an ineffective, highly politicized barrier to asylum, advocacy groups like RAICES are already gearing up for fresh legal challenges to protect families most at risk of being impacted by this order.
WHAT TO KNOW
Issue: On May 18, 2026, the CDC and partner federal agencies issued a new Title 42 order restricting travel, ostensibly to prevent Ebola from spreading in the U.S. The order bars entry for non-U.S. passport holders who have been in the DRC, Uganda, or South Sudan within the past 21 days.
Rationale: Triggered by the WHO declaring the Central and East African Ebola outbreak a public health emergency of international concern, this restriction targets the virus's 21-day incubation period, which allows asymptomatic individuals to bypass standard screenings. While the CDC notes the immediate risk to the general U.S. public is low, it enacted this order to bar entry from these specific nations.
RAICES Impact: Although RAICES does not serve individuals prior to U.S. entry, the organization does prioritize access to asylum as a central rights advocacy concern. RAICES previously fought Title 42 during the COVID-19 pandemic when the first Trump administration used ICE centers to expel families without due process. With a legal team actively assisting detained families, RAICES is uniquely positioned to counter administrative efforts to block families from accessing asylum.
Community Impact: Medical experts argue that viruses ignore passports and that travel bans fail to stop outbreaks from crossing borders. Critics warn this policy reinforces a historical pattern of politicizing public health to oppress and exclude immigrants and communities of color under the guise of public safety.
Related Legal Battles: Executive misuse of Title 42 has historically faced fierce litigation from civil rights groups like CGRS, the ACLU, and RAICES. Landmark class actions, such as P.J.E.S. v. Wolf (unaccompanied children) and Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas (family units), successfully secured injunctions blocking summary expulsions to areas of persecution or torture. Fresh legal challenges are highly anticipated.
Broader Immigration Strategy: Weaponizing Title 42 to restrict asylum aligns with a predictable pattern by hostile administrations. Advocates must expose the harms of this policy, which violates the law and breaches the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits countries from returning people to places where they would face persecution or torture. Future legal strategies should highlight how this order fits into systemic executive efforts to limit access to asylum protections.
