The crisis at the Southern border empowered the State of Texas to take the immigration matter into its own hands since the federal government has been lackadaisical about solving this crisis. Thus, the State of Texas passed a law, the SB4, which requires local law enforcement agencies to comply with federal requests to detain individuals suspected of being in the country illegally and prohibits local policies that restrict officers from inquiring about a person’s immigration status during routine interactions, such as traffic stops. The SB4 law has been signed into law by Texas Governor Greg Abbott in 2017.
However, that same year, several provisions of the Texas SB4 were blocked by federal courts following legal challenges. In August 2017, a federal district court judge temporarily blocked key portions of the law, including the provision that required local law enforcement officials to comply with federal immigration detainers. The judge found that these provisions raised constitutional concerns and could potentially lead to Fourth Amendment violations by allowing for prolonged detention without probable cause.
A federal appeals court extended its hold on a new Texas immigration law this Wednesday, March 27, 2024, meaning the measure cannot go into effect while litigation continues. A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 vote said in a decision issued overnight that the statute, known as Senate Bill 4, should remain blocked.
Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, and Judge Irma Ramirez, who was nominated by President Joe Biden, joined in the order Tuesday ruling against Texas’ request. Richman wrote for the majority that it is the president’s role “to decide whether, and if so, how to pursue noncitizens illegally present in the United States.” Judge Andrew Oldham, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, dissented. He wrote in his 70-page dissent the following: “The State of Texas is forever helpless: Texas can do nothing because Congress apparently did everything. And second, while the dispute before us is entirely hypothetical, the consequences of today’s decision will be very real.” The same court temporarily froze the law on March 19, just hours after the Supreme Court said it could go into effect.
The state law would allow police to arrest migrants suspected of illegally crossing the border from Mexico and impose criminal penalties, and it would empower state judges to order people to be deported to Mexico. In court filings, Texas contends that the state “is the nation’s first-line defense against transnational violence and has been forced to deal with the deadly consequences of the federal government’s inability or unwillingness to protect the border.”
Proponents of the SB4 bill argued that the court’s ability to block the legislation is an infringement upon states’ rights and that the State of Texas shall be able to defend itself if invaded. They essentially argue that the SBA bill upholds immigration laws, enhances public safety, and more importantly, preserves state sovereignty. Indeed, supporters of SB 4 assert that the law preserves state sovereignty and the authority of state and local governments to assist in federal immigration enforcement efforts. They argue that states have a legitimate interest in regulating immigration within their borders and that SB 4 reinforces this authority.
The legal battle will surely be an ongoing challenge for the State of Texas. In the meantime, illegal immigration continues to remain a serious issue that is becoming harder to contain as the courts prevent the State of Texas from acting.