A federal judge has blocked a Texas law empowering police across the state to arrest immigrants suspected of entering the country illegally — a measure derided by advocates as permitting racial profiling and criminalizing anyone who looks like an immigrant.
U.S. District Judge David A. Ezra granted a preliminary injunction Thursday that will keep the law, Senate Bill 4, from taking effect on March 5 after the Biden administration and immigrant advocacy groups sued to stop it. The state will appeal to the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, setting the stage for a prolonged legal battle.
The bill was the marquee proposal the Texas legislature passed last year to further expand the state’s role in border security. Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has been in an ongoing battle with the Biden administration over immigration enforcement. The judge, who was nominated to the bench by Republican President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his decision that the state law conflicts directly with federal law over such powers.
Advertisement
“To allow Texas to permanently supersede federal directives on the basis of an invasion would amount to nullification of federal law and authority — a notion that is antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts since the Civil War,” Ezra wrote.
The coalition of civil and immigrant rights organizations celebrated the decision. They argued the legislation gave law enforcement overly broad and dubious powers to arrest anyone they suspect of having crossed the border illegally, no matter how far they live from the border itself or the details of their immigration status.
The law criminalizes illegal migration as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail. Anyone accused of reentering the country illegally could also face felony charges. Lawmakers empowered state judges to order deportations to Mexico and allow local law enforcement personnel to carry them out. Judges could also drop the charges if the migrant agrees to return voluntarily.
Advertisement
While the largest group of immigrants crossing the border historically have been from Mexico, the numbers of those arriving from more distant lands have risen. Mexico has denounced the Texas law.
Share this articleShare“These laws affect newcomers and established citizens and people in all kinds of different bubbles of immigration status,” said Marisa Limón Garza, executive director of the El Paso-based Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, one of several plaintiffs. “In the eyes of the state, any Black or Brown person should feel targeted.”
Texas GOP leaders acknowledged when they passed the law that they were pushing the envelope, especially after the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Arizona could not interfere with federal immigration law. Lawmakers also approved legislation allocating $1.5 billion for Texas to continue building its own border wall.
Advertisement
In a written statement, Abbott reasserted his belief that Texas has the constitutional authority to “defend itself” from “the invasion at our southern border.”
“Texas will immediately appeal this decision, and we will not back down in our fight to protect our state — and our nation — from President Biden’s border crisis,” the governor said. “Even from the bench, this District Judge acknowledged that this case will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
In his decision, Ezra said the Texas law runs counter to established federal and case law by creating new state immigration laws. Abbott invoked the “invasion” clauses of the U.S. and Texas Constitutions in letters to the Biden administration, claiming war powers to confront the perceived threat.
But the judge ruled that “surges in immigration do not constitute an ‘invasion’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”
Advertisement
ACLU senior staff attorney Anand Balakrishnan, who argued the case in court, praised the judge’s decision for recognizing the perils of the state’s approach to immigration. He noted that the judge underscored the necessity of a uniform immigration system, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution.
“The judge’s opinion goes through the history of the constitutional provisions to show that the state’s theory is incorrect and in fact very dangerous,” he said.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZLuiwMiopWhqYGeBcHyRaGlyZ6SaxaK%2FjKycp5mkmnqjtculZKmnnJ6wpnnAq6meq6Riuqqz0Zqlratf