The Supreme Court has temporarily blocked the enforcement of the Texas Immigration Law SB 4. This law, signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in December, has been a subject of controversy and has sparked an outcry from immigrant civil rights organizations across the country.
“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,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott celebrated the appeals court’s decision on social media.
The law, known as SB 4, empowers local and state law enforcement to arrest migrants they suspect crossed into the state illegally. It also gives judges the authority to order migrants to be transported to a port of entry and returned to Mexico, regardless of their country of origin. If convicted under the law, first-time offenders face up to six months in jail and orders to return to Mexico. Repeat offenders can face up to 20 years in prison.
The Biden administration has consistently argued that immigration law is solely the responsibility of the federal government and not local jurisdictions. This assertion was repeated in Monday’s filing with the Supreme Court.
The administration 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 has argued that it is within its rights to arrest migrants because SB 4 is applicable under the State War Clause of the Constitution. This clause allows states to act when it is “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Gov. Abbott has repeatedly referred to the situation at the southern border as an invasion.
However, the Justice Department said Monday that the clause “has no application here.” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar writes in the filing, “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.”
Judge David A. Ezra took a similar stance in last week’s ruling, writing, “…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 also wrote that the law would cause “irreparable harm” if it were to go into effect and that “SB 4 could open the door to each state passing its own version of immigration laws.”
The law remains blocked until March 13 at 5 p.m. ET to give the justices time to decide how to proceed. The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to vacate a stay earlier today that would have allowed SB 4 to go into effect at 12:01 a.m. on March 10, 2024.
This case represents a significant moment in the ongoing debate over immigration policy in the United States. It underscores the tension between federal and state jurisdictions over who has the authority to regulate immigration. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for how immigration laws are enforced across the country.
