Federal judge blocks sweeping new immigration law in Texas

A federal court in Austin on Thursday blocked implementation of a Texas law that would allow state and local police officers to arrest migrants crossing without permission from Mexico. They sided with the federal government in a legal showdown over immigration enforcement.

The ruling by Judge David A. Ezra of the Western District of Texas was a victory for the Biden administration, which had argued that the new state law violated federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution.

The Texas law was set to go into effect on March 5, but will now be put on hold as the case progresses. In granting a preliminary injunction, Judge Ezra, who was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan, signaled that the federal government would likely ultimately win on the merits.

Gov. Greg Abbott, who has moved aggressively over the past three years to create a system of state-level border enforcement, would likely appeal the decision.

Texas has been battling the Biden administration on several legal fronts, including last year’s installation of a 1,000-foot buoy barrier in the middle of the Rio Grande and, separately, the installation of miles of rip cord along the river’s banks. .

But the battle over the new state law, known as Senate Bill 4, represented the most consequential legal confrontation because it directly challenged what has historically been seen as the federal government’s unique role in arresting, detaining, and deporting immigrants who arrive without permission to be in the country. .

Legal experts have said the battle over the law will likely end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, and Judge Ezra said during a three-hour hearing earlier this month that he also expected the case to reach the nation’s highest court.

If so, it would give the 6-3 conservative majority a chance to revisit a landmark 2012 Arizona case that upheld the federal government’s power to set immigration policy.

It is already illegal under federal law to enter the United States between legal ports of entry. But in practice, most migrants are not prosecuted the first time they do so. Most detainees do not attempt to evade authorities, but rather seek to be detained by U.S. Border Patrol, giving them the opportunity to seek asylum protection. Although the majority are ultimately rejected, these asylum cases can take years to resolve and migrants are allowed to remain in the country in the meantime.

The Texas Legislature designed SB 4 to closely follow federal law prohibiting illegal entry, making it a state-level crime to enter Texas from Mexico. A second illegal entry would be a crime under the law.

But immigrant groups, civil rights advocates and some Texas Democrats have criticized the legislation for making it harder for migrants facing persecution in their home countries to seek asylum and for failing to protect legitimate asylum seekers from prosecution in state courts.

Critics have also said the law could lead to racial profiling by giving law enforcement across Texas, even those far from the border, the ability to arrest anyone they suspect has entered illegally in the past two years.

“It’s simply a blow to federal immigration law,” Judge Ezra said during the hearing.

Lawyers for the Biden administration argued during the hearing and in their filings that the Texas law conflicted with numerous federal laws that provide a process for handling immigration proceedings and deportations. The administration also said the law hampered the federal government’s ability to conduct foreign relations, citing complaints already filed by the Mexican government against the Texas law.

Under SB 4, migrants accused of illegally entering Texas could be ordered to return to Mexico during legal proceedings or face prosecution if they do not agree to go. The Mexican authorities said they ‘rejected’ any legislation allowing state or local authorities to send migrants, most of whom are not Mexican, back across the border into Mexico.

“To the extent that Texas seeks to assist in immigration enforcement, it may do so by cooperating with the federal government,” the Justice Department wrote in its motion seeking an injunction, “or by cooperating with Congress to change the law.”

Lawyers for Texas from Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office argued in opposing the order that the state law did not conflict with federal law because it was “consistent” with existing federal prohibitions on illegal entry.

The state’s attorneys described the recent record number of migrants at the Texas border as “a large-scale invasion of transnational criminal cartels” and argued that Texas had the power to defend itself. They pointed to Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from making war “unless actually invaded.”

Under pressure from immigration hardliners and former Trump administration officials, Mr. Abbott said in November 2022 that he had invoked the ‘invasion clause’. The state has also cited the constitutional provision in the other ongoing cases between Texas and the federal government.

The argument was previously shot down by Judge Ezra, who also presided over the buoy barrier case.

During the hearing on SB 4, Judge Ezra frequently asked questions, especially when the attorney representing the Texas Attorney General was speaking, and he seemed deeply skeptical of the law.

“For argument’s sake, let’s say I agree with you,” he told the state’s attorney, Ryan Walters. California might then want to pass its own immigration and deportation law, he said. Maybe Maine would follow suit, he said, and then others, like Louisiana or Arizona or New Mexico.

“That changes us from the United States of America to a confederation of states,” Judge Ezra said. “What a nightmare.”