03/20/2024 05:39 PM
Unexpectedly, just hours after the Supreme Court had approved the bill, an appeals court in Texas halted a statute that permits state police to detain undocumented immigrants once again.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit said Tuesday night that it would be considering the Biden administration's challenge against the legislation on Wednesday morning, only hours after the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to overturn a lower court injunction against Texas' Senate Bill 4. That panel's majority decision to once again halt the legislation while the legal procedure is ongoing came before oral arguments.
03/19/2024 18:34 PM
Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal from the Biden administration, arguing that states cannot interfere with federal jurisdiction over the border, and declined to stop Texas from enforcing its own criminal statute against illegal immigration.
The Texas bill, referred to as SB 4, permits state agents to carry out deportations and designates unauthorized border crossing as a criminal. The government asked the Supreme Court to put the measure on hold so that legal proceedings in lower courts may focus on its validity, thus the court heeded the government's request and put the act on hold. The statute had been blocked by a federal district court; however, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, located in New Orleans, declared that the law may be implemented, at least temporarily.
Although the Texas state legislation may fare better than a comparable Arizona statute that a less conservative Supreme Court threw down in 2012, the court's judgment in favor of Texas is not a definitive ruling on the validity of the act.
Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—three liberal justices—dissented from the ruling on Tuesday.
Signed into law in December, SB 4 makes it illegal for anybody entering Texas without permission and empowers local and state police to imprison and deport offenders.
The disagreement over SB 4 is a reflection of the growing hostility between Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the Biden administration about border security. Abbott has advocated for a number of actions, including as the construction of walls in and around the Rio Grande, on the grounds that the federal government has neglected its responsibility to guard the southern border. The Biden administration has challenged Abbott's policy in federal court on many occasions.
Abbott's Operation Lone Star has seen the state spend or allot more than $11 billion since 2021 in order to build walls along the Rio Grande, arrest migrants for trespassing on private property, transport migrants to northern cities, and send state troopers and National Guardsmen to the border.
In a succinct statement shared on social media, Abbott called the decision a welcome step forward.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton informed the Supreme Court in court documents that SB 4 is similar to federal immigration law and should be seen as a means of assisting Washington in addressing a border problem that has outpaced the capabilities of the federal government.
Additionally, he noted, Texas has a long history of taking independent action in response to external threats. He said that "both before and after Texas's statehood, Texas repeatedly responded with force against marauders who crossed into Texas from Mexico."
In its brief, the Biden administration said that no state had the legal right to take control of Washington's immigration enforcement.
State law is preempted if Congress has passed legislation addressing such matters, according to U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who noted that "authority to admit and remove noncitizens is a core responsibility of the National Government."
She mentioned almost a century's worth of precedent, such as the Arizona ruling from 2012. According to her, allowing each state to operate in violation of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act would lead to anarchy as federal and state officials collaborated against their own interests. It would also sour relations with Mexico and other foreign governments and impede the United States' adherence to agreements that prohibit the deportation of noncitizens to nations where they would probably face persecution or torture.
At least at this phase of the lawsuit, their arguments were unsuccessful.
Karine Jean-Pierre, the communications secretary for the White House, said on Tuesday that "we fundamentally disagree with the Supreme Court's order allowing Texas' harmful and unconstitutional law to go into effect."
Claiming that the bipartisan immigration measure was "the toughest and fairest set of border reforms in decades," Jean-Pierre held House Republicans accountable for its obstruction.
The court order from Tuesday was not signed, as is customary in emergency cases. The conservative majority's two judges left open the possibility of giving the subject another look as soon as possible.
Alongside Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that the case's procedural chronology indicated the Fifth Circuit will reach a more decisive decision soon, and the Supreme Court should then decide whether to temporarily suspend the statute.
She went on, "The Biden administration may return to this Court if a decision does not issue soon."
According to liberal judges, SB 4 will revolutionize immigration law and should not be allowed to go into force while its legality is being considered by the courts.
Sotomayor and Jackson said that the majority's judgment "invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement."
In a short dissent, Kagan wrote separately and said that SB 4 should be placed on hold while the court considers it because "immigration generally, and the entry and removal of noncitizens particularly, are matters long thought the special province of the Federal Government."
Unexpectedly, just hours after the Supreme Court had approved the bill, an appeals court in Texas halted a statute that permits state police to detain undocumented immigrants once again.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit said Tuesday night that it would be considering the Biden administration's challenge against the legislation on Wednesday morning, only hours after the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to overturn a lower court injunction against Texas' Senate Bill 4. That panel's majority decision to once again halt the legislation while the legal procedure is ongoing came before oral arguments.
03/19/2024 18:34 PM
Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal from the Biden administration, arguing that states cannot interfere with federal jurisdiction over the border, and declined to stop Texas from enforcing its own criminal statute against illegal immigration.
The Texas bill, referred to as SB 4, permits state agents to carry out deportations and designates unauthorized border crossing as a criminal. The government asked the Supreme Court to put the measure on hold so that legal proceedings in lower courts may focus on its validity, thus the court heeded the government's request and put the act on hold. The statute had been blocked by a federal district court; however, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, located in New Orleans, declared that the law may be implemented, at least temporarily.
Although the Texas state legislation may fare better than a comparable Arizona statute that a less conservative Supreme Court threw down in 2012, the court's judgment in favor of Texas is not a definitive ruling on the validity of the act.
Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—three liberal justices—dissented from the ruling on Tuesday.
Signed into law in December, SB 4 makes it illegal for anybody entering Texas without permission and empowers local and state police to imprison and deport offenders.
The disagreement over SB 4 is a reflection of the growing hostility between Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the Biden administration about border security. Abbott has advocated for a number of actions, including as the construction of walls in and around the Rio Grande, on the grounds that the federal government has neglected its responsibility to guard the southern border. The Biden administration has challenged Abbott's policy in federal court on many occasions.
Abbott's Operation Lone Star has seen the state spend or allot more than $11 billion since 2021 in order to build walls along the Rio Grande, arrest migrants for trespassing on private property, transport migrants to northern cities, and send state troopers and National Guardsmen to the border.
In a succinct statement shared on social media, Abbott called the decision a welcome step forward.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton informed the Supreme Court in court documents that SB 4 is similar to federal immigration law and should be seen as a means of assisting Washington in addressing a border problem that has outpaced the capabilities of the federal government.
Additionally, he noted, Texas has a long history of taking independent action in response to external threats. He said that "both before and after Texas's statehood, Texas repeatedly responded with force against marauders who crossed into Texas from Mexico."
In its brief, the Biden administration said that no state had the legal right to take control of Washington's immigration enforcement.
State law is preempted if Congress has passed legislation addressing such matters, according to U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who noted that "authority to admit and remove noncitizens is a core responsibility of the National Government."
She mentioned almost a century's worth of precedent, such as the Arizona ruling from 2012. According to her, allowing each state to operate in violation of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act would lead to anarchy as federal and state officials collaborated against their own interests. It would also sour relations with Mexico and other foreign governments and impede the United States' adherence to agreements that prohibit the deportation of noncitizens to nations where they would probably face persecution or torture.
At least at this phase of the lawsuit, their arguments were unsuccessful.
Karine Jean-Pierre, the communications secretary for the White House, said on Tuesday that "we fundamentally disagree with the Supreme Court's order allowing Texas' harmful and unconstitutional law to go into effect."
Claiming that the bipartisan immigration measure was "the toughest and fairest set of border reforms in decades," Jean-Pierre held House Republicans accountable for its obstruction.
The court order from Tuesday was not signed, as is customary in emergency cases. The conservative majority's two judges left open the possibility of giving the subject another look as soon as possible.
Alongside Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that the case's procedural chronology indicated the Fifth Circuit will reach a more decisive decision soon, and the Supreme Court should then decide whether to temporarily suspend the statute.
She went on, "The Biden administration may return to this Court if a decision does not issue soon."
According to liberal judges, SB 4 will revolutionize immigration law and should not be allowed to go into force while its legality is being considered by the courts.
Sotomayor and Jackson said that the majority's judgment "invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement."
In a short dissent, Kagan wrote separately and said that SB 4 should be placed on hold while the court considers it because "immigration generally, and the entry and removal of noncitizens particularly, are matters long thought the special province of the Federal Government."
