Federal Judge Grants Injunction, Temporarily Halts Controversial Texas Immigration Bill
In a significant development, a federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily halt the implementation of one of the strictest immigration bills in the country, known as SB 4, in Texas. The law, set to go into effect on March 5, would have authorized local and state law enforcement to arrest migrants suspected of crossing into the state illegally. It would have also given judges the power to order migrants to be transported to a port of entry and returned to Mexico, regardless of their country of origin.
Texas immediately appealed the decision, with Attorney General Ken Paxton stating, “We have appealed this incorrect decision. Texas has a clear right to defend itself from the drug smugglers, human traffickers, cartels, and legions of illegal aliens crossing into our State as a consequence of the Biden Administration’s deliberate policy choices.” Republican Gov. Greg Abbott also criticized the Biden administration, emphasizing that the President has a constitutional duty to enforce federal laws protecting states.
The judge’s decision comes amidst President Joe Biden’s call for Congress to pass a bipartisan immigration deal that includes changes to asylum protocols, funding for immigration review and additional Border Patrol agents, as well as new emergency powers for officials. Both Biden and former President Donald Trump were scheduled to visit the southern border on the same day.
U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan, questioned the constitutionality of SB 4 in his opinion. He highlighted that states cannot exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government, according to the Supremacy Clause and previous Supreme Court rulings. Ezra also noted that the law would conflict with certain aspects of federal immigration law and would have negative implications for the United States’ foreign relations and treaty obligations.
Ezra further expressed concerns about the potential ramifications of allowing SB 4 to proceed, stating that it could lead to each state passing its own immigration laws, creating an inconsistent and fragmented regulatory landscape. He emphasized that this would undermine the fundamental notion of regulating immigration with one voice in the United States.
Various organizations and advocates celebrated the judge’s decision. The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project had filed a lawsuit against SB 4 on behalf of El Paso County, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and American Gateways. The ACLU of Texas acknowledged the victory on social media, stating, “This is a win for Texas values, human rights, and the Constitution. The State could try to appeal today’s decision — but we’re not backing down.” The organization aims to strike down the law permanently, highlighting concerns about racial profiling and the risks it poses to communities of color.
Marisa Limón Garza, executive director of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, expressed gratitude for the ruling but acknowledged that the fight against SB 4 is far from over. She stated, “So this is a huge victory for Texans and in particularly Texans of color. We are so glad to see this positive momentum. We know that the battle may be won for now, but the war continues and so we are ready for that… We know the fight continues and we’re ready to continue to do our work to ensure the safety of all Texans.”
While the preliminary injunction offers temporary relief, the ultimate fate of SB 4 will likely be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Until then, the ongoing legal battle will determine whether or not this controversial immigration bill will ever come into effect in Texas.
