Supreme Court Blocks Texas’ Strict Immigration Law Temporarily, Biden Administration Intervenes
In a recent development, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has issued an administrative stay that temporarily blocks the implementation of Texas’ strict immigration law, SB 4. This decision comes after the Biden administration requested the court’s intervention. The law will remain blocked until March 13 at 5:00 P.M. (EDT) to provide the justices with sufficient time to determine the best course of action. Justice Alito has also given Texas until the evening of March 11 to respond to the Biden administration’s request.
The Justice Department had previously requested the Supreme Court to vacate a stay issued by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had overruled an injunction granted by a lower court last Thursday, temporarily striking down the law. The Justice Department lawyers expressed their concerns in a filing, stating, “Absent this Court’s intervention, SB4 will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. on March 10, 2024, profoundly altering the status quo that has existed between the United States and the States in the context of immigration for almost 150 years.”
The law, commonly known as SB 4, grants local and state law enforcement officers the authority to arrest migrants they suspect of crossing into Texas illegally. Additionally, judges would have the power to order migrants to be transported to a port of entry and returned to Mexico, regardless of their country of origin. Texas Governor Greg Abbott had celebrated the overturning of last week’s ruling earlier on Monday, taking to social media and stating, “BREAKING HUGE NEWS. Federal appeals court allows Texas immigration law to take effect. Law enforcement officers in Texas are now authorized to arrest & jail any illegal immigrants crossing the border.”
The Biden administration’s argument centers around the notion that immigration law is solely the responsibility of the federal government and not local jurisdictions. This assertion was reiterated in the administration’s filing with the Supreme Court. They stated, “This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested ‘solely in the Federal Government.'”
On the other hand, Texas argues that it has the right to arrest migrants under the State War Clause of the Constitution, which allows states to act when there is an “actual invasion” or when there is imminent danger. Governor Abbott has referred to the situation at the southern border as an invasion and invoked Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. However, the Justice Department argues that this clause does not apply in this case. They state, “A surge of unauthorized immigration plainly is not an invasion within the meaning of the State War Clause. And even if it were, the Clause does not permit States to contradict the federal government’s considered response to any invasion that has occurred.”
In a previous ruling, Judge David A. Ezra shared a similar perspective, stating that surges in immigration do not constitute an invasion within the meaning of the Constitution, nor is Texas engaging in war by enforcing SB 4. He further noted that if allowed to proceed, SB 4 could open the door for every state to pass its own version of immigration laws, leading to inconsistent regulations and undermining the uniform regulation of immigration throughout the country.
SB 4 has sparked outrage among immigrant civil rights organizations, who fear that the law will result in racial profiling of migrants. Convictions under the law could lead to up to six months in jail and orders to return to Mexico for first-time offenders. Repeat offenders may face up to 20 years in prison.
The outcome of this case will have significant implications for immigration law and its enforcement across the United States. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to uphold or strike down SB 4 will shape the future of immigration policies and determine the extent of state involvement in immigration matters.
The reporting of this article was contributed by Mark Osborne, Luke Barr, and Alexander Mallin from ABC News.
