During the course of a court dispute over the policy, a split Supreme Court on Tuesday gave Texas permission to start implementing a statute that provides police extensive authority to detain anyone they suspect of crossing the border illegally.
The Biden administration filed an emergency application, arguing that the statute violates federal jurisdiction and would result in turmoil for immigration law, but the conservative majority's decision rejects it.
Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas applauded the decision as well as the legislation, which gives any Texas police officer the authority to detain foreign nationals for unauthorized entrance and gives courts the power to compel them to leave the country.
Whether the statute is constitutional was not a topic the high court addressed. It is now back with an appeal court, and ultimately it may make its way back to the Supreme Court. It was unclear when Texas will start making lawful arrests of migrants in the meantime.
Where migrants told to leave could go was likewise unknown. Even if they are not citizens of Mexico, the law requires them to be transferred to ports of entry along the border between the United States and Mexico.
However, the Mexican government said on Tuesday that it would not, "under any circumstances," allow any migrants from the state of Texas to return to its territory. Except for its nationals, Mexico is under no obligation to accept deportations.
It denounced the Texas law's implementation, claiming that it would criminalize immigration, cause family division, discrimination, and racial profiling. The administration said that it will present its case before the appeals court when it came to reviewing the legislation.
The Foreign Affairs ministry issued a statement saying, "Mexico rejects any measure that allows state or local authorities to handle immigration control, detain or return nationals or foreigners to Mexican territory."
Unlike previous emergency appeals, the Supreme Court's majority did not produce a comprehensive opinion in this case. However, liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the decision to allow the statute to take effect.
In an acerbic dissent that Jackson and Sotomayor signed, they said, "The Court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos."
Opponents of the measure, known as Senate Bill 4, believe it to be the most drastic state effort to control immigration since the Supreme Court overturned parts of an Arizona law more than ten years ago. The Texas law's opponents have also claimed that it may result in racial profiling and civil rights abuses.
Karine Jean-Pierre, press secretary for the White House, described the measure as "harmful and unconstitutional," adding that it will complicate matters and put a strain on law enforcement. She urged House Republicans to draft a federal border security plan to resolve the dispute.
According to the advocacy organization FWD.us, the Supreme Court's ruling could inspire other states to enact legislation that overrides federal jurisdiction. The measure would "unjustly target Texas families, including American citizens, longtime undocumented residents awaiting federal relief, and recent migrants seeking legal protections," according to Andrea Flores, vice president of the Association for Immigration Policy and Campaigns.
For its part, Texas has maintained that it has the authority to intervene in response to what law enforcement refers to as a continuous crisis at the southern border. In response to the state legislation, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice said in a statement that it is "prepared to handle any influx in population."
Since the state's legislative session last year, Texas sheriffs' offices have been getting ready for the implementation of Senate Bill 4, according to Skylor Hearn, executive director of the Sheriffs' Association of Texas.
According to him, the rule permits law enforcement officials in counties that share a border with Mexico to apprehend those who they see to be entering unlawfully. It may also be used in other parts of Texas if a person is detained on suspicion of committing another crime and a fingerprint obtained at the time of booking into prison connects them to a possible re-entry infraction. According to him, it probably would not be relevant in a typical traffic stop.
The Biden administration filed an emergency application, arguing that the statute violates federal jurisdiction and would result in turmoil for immigration law, but the conservative majority's decision rejects it.
Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas applauded the decision as well as the legislation, which gives any Texas police officer the authority to detain foreign nationals for unauthorized entrance and gives courts the power to compel them to leave the country.
Whether the statute is constitutional was not a topic the high court addressed. It is now back with an appeal court, and ultimately it may make its way back to the Supreme Court. It was unclear when Texas will start making lawful arrests of migrants in the meantime.
Where migrants told to leave could go was likewise unknown. Even if they are not citizens of Mexico, the law requires them to be transferred to ports of entry along the border between the United States and Mexico.
However, the Mexican government said on Tuesday that it would not, "under any circumstances," allow any migrants from the state of Texas to return to its territory. Except for its nationals, Mexico is under no obligation to accept deportations.
It denounced the Texas law's implementation, claiming that it would criminalize immigration, cause family division, discrimination, and racial profiling. The administration said that it will present its case before the appeals court when it came to reviewing the legislation.
The Foreign Affairs ministry issued a statement saying, "Mexico rejects any measure that allows state or local authorities to handle immigration control, detain or return nationals or foreigners to Mexican territory."
Unlike previous emergency appeals, the Supreme Court's majority did not produce a comprehensive opinion in this case. However, liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the decision to allow the statute to take effect.
In an acerbic dissent that Jackson and Sotomayor signed, they said, "The Court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos."
Opponents of the measure, known as Senate Bill 4, believe it to be the most drastic state effort to control immigration since the Supreme Court overturned parts of an Arizona law more than ten years ago. The Texas law's opponents have also claimed that it may result in racial profiling and civil rights abuses.
Karine Jean-Pierre, press secretary for the White House, described the measure as "harmful and unconstitutional," adding that it will complicate matters and put a strain on law enforcement. She urged House Republicans to draft a federal border security plan to resolve the dispute.
According to the advocacy organization FWD.us, the Supreme Court's ruling could inspire other states to enact legislation that overrides federal jurisdiction. The measure would "unjustly target Texas families, including American citizens, longtime undocumented residents awaiting federal relief, and recent migrants seeking legal protections," according to Andrea Flores, vice president of the Association for Immigration Policy and Campaigns.
For its part, Texas has maintained that it has the authority to intervene in response to what law enforcement refers to as a continuous crisis at the southern border. In response to the state legislation, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice said in a statement that it is "prepared to handle any influx in population."
Since the state's legislative session last year, Texas sheriffs' offices have been getting ready for the implementation of Senate Bill 4, according to Skylor Hearn, executive director of the Sheriffs' Association of Texas.
According to him, the rule permits law enforcement officials in counties that share a border with Mexico to apprehend those who they see to be entering unlawfully. It may also be used in other parts of Texas if a person is detained on suspicion of committing another crime and a fingerprint obtained at the time of booking into prison connects them to a possible re-entry infraction. According to him, it probably would not be relevant in a typical traffic stop.
