A federal judge says an asylum-seeking family being blocked from entering the California-Mexico border cannot intervene in the Arizona-led suit trying to keep Title 42 in place. 

The pandemic-era protocol places broad restrictions on asylum. Arizona and other states have argued it's needed to control migration at the border.

Monika Langarica, a staff attorney with the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy, says the suit is missing a key perspective. 

There is no representation in this case, from individuals, or organizations who are directly impacted by the Title 42 order and the termination order. 

That’s why last week, Langarica and her colleagues filed a motion to intervene on behalf of an asylum-seeking family stuck in Tijuana and the Innovation Law Lab, a legal aid network helping build asylum cases. 

But on Friday, Judge Robert Summerhays of Louisiana said the motion didn’t present a new argument and couldn’t join the case. Arizona filed suit against the CDC's termination plan in April and was joined by Texas and more than a dozen other, non-border states.  

Langarica's motion argued any order mandating the statute remain in place should only apply to the states who file suit. She said Title 42 should be allowed to end as planned, on May 23, in New Mexico and California. Though the legal aid group and family she's representing can't be parties in the suit, Langarica said the judge is expected to take her oral arguments into consideration when ruling on how, and where, Title 42 continues. 

He’s expected to issue a final ruling on whether the CDC can terminate Title 42 this week.