Federal Judge Blocks Texas Law Allowing Arrests of Suspected Illegal Immigrants
In a recent development, a federal judge has temporarily blocked a controversial Texas law that would have granted local police the authority to arrest individuals suspected of being in the state illegally. The law, known as Senate Bill 4, was passed in late 2023 as part of a priority package of immigration and border security bills supported by Governor Greg Abbott and far-right leaders. It not only permitted arrests but also empowered local judges to order individuals to return to Mexico, regardless of their nationality.
However, U.S. District Judge David Ezra ruled on Thursday that the law is likely unconstitutional due to the federal government’s jurisdiction over immigration matters. He stated, “Several factors warrant an injunction. First, the Supremacy Clause and Supreme Court precedent affirm that states may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government.” Judge Ezra further explained that the law conflicts with key provisions of federal immigration law, which could harm the United States’ foreign relations and treaty obligations.
Originally scheduled to go into effect on March 5, the implementation of the legislation is currently on hold as the case continues. The state of Texas has promptly appealed the ruling to the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, potentially setting the stage for a future review by the United States Supreme Court.
Under Senate Bill 4, unauthorized entry into Texas from Mexico would be classified as a misdemeanor for a first offense, with penalties escalating to a felony for subsequent violations. The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project filed a lawsuit challenging the law on behalf of El Paso-based Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, American Gateways, and El Paso County. The suit named Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw and El Paso County District Attorney Bill Hicks as defendants. In a separate lawsuit, the U.S. Department of Justice also challenged the law, and the two cases were later consolidated.
Unsurprisingly, the plaintiffs celebrated the judge’s decision, emphasizing the importance of focusing on building a safe and humane immigration system without racial profiling and harassment. Jennifer Babaie, the director of advocacy and legal services with Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, stated, “We must continue to be vigilant against Texas’ politics of fear and hatred. But today, immigrants and Texans of color get to pursue living lives of hope, opportunity, and family. It’s a win worth celebrating.”
David Donatti, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas, echoed this sentiment, asserting that the current immigration system needed repair but Senate Bill 4 would only exacerbate the situation. He stated, “Cruelty to migrants is not a policy solution.”
However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling and immediately announced his office’s appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Paxton argued that Texas had the right to defend itself against drug smugglers, human traffickers, cartels, and illegal aliens crossing into the state due to the Biden Administration’s policies. He emphasized his determination to protect Texas from what he referred to as a “catastrophic illegal invasion encouraged by the federal government.”
Judge Ezra’s ruling also highlighted that the removal provision of the Texas law could interfere with existing agreements on repatriation that the federal government has with other countries. He explained that federal law sets out specific circumstances for when the government may remove a noncitizen, and diplomatic discussions with foreign governments play a crucial role in determining whether they will accept noncitizens. Ezra wrote, “The Department of State…has made clear that Texas’ removal policy will hamper diplomatic discussions regarding immigration with Mexico.”
Moreover, the judge disputed Texas’ claim that it was being invaded by migrants, stating that the Constitution does not refer to immigration as an “invasion.” He clarified that even if it were an invasion, Texas would have to cede its war authority to the federal government. Judge Ezra concluded, “At each step of the way, Texas’ radical position falters.”
The case continues to draw attention and is likely to have significant implications for immigration policy in Texas and beyond. As the legal battle unfolds, the debate surrounding immigration enforcement and the rights of undocumented immigrants remains at the forefront of the national conversation.
