A sweeping 2023 Texas immigration law that lets state authorities arrest and deport people suspected of having illegally crossed the U.S.-Mexico border can go into effect after a federal appeals court on Friday lifted a lower court’s stoppage of certain provisions.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unpublished order after Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office appealed the lower court’s May 14 injunction, which had blocked most of the law a day before it was set to take effect.
Friday’s ruling, which clears the law to take effect in its entirety, is the latest in a dizzying series of seesaw rulings over the fate of the measure known as Senate Bill 4. It comes as part of a lawsuit filed by civil rights groups contending parts of the landmark immigration law are unconstitutional.
The organizations brought the current lawsuit earlier this month to stop four key sections of Senate Bill 4: the creation of a crime for re-entering the country without authorization, even if a person has since gained legal status; the establishment of magistrates’ authority to order a person’s deportation; the creation of a crime for not complying with a magistrate’s order; and the requirement that magistrates continue a prosecution even if a person has an asylum claim or other pending immigration cases.
In a joint statement, the groups called the court’s decision “disappointing and out of step with the Constitution and the unbroken practice of other courts.”
“S.B. 4 will devastate our communities and families by turning our state’s legal system into an unconstitutional weapon to surveil, harass, and harm Texans based on their perceived immigration status,” the statement read, coming from the ACLU, the ACLU’s Texas chapter and the Texas Civil Rights Project.
Gov. Greg Abbott celebrated the decision, noting that the ruling had come on the heels of a legal brief from his office defending SB 4.
“We will keep fighting in the courts, working with President Trump, and doing everything necessary to secure our border and protect Texans,” Abbott wrote on social media.
The groups argued that the sections involving the state’s judicial system are unconstitutional because they encroach on the federal government’s sole authority over immigration laws. It also challenged the re-entry provision, saying that the law provides no defense for people who had federal permission to enter the country or those who might have pending immigration status.
U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra previously granted the preliminary injunction against these sections of the law. The Reagan appointee had signaled during a Wednesday hearing that he considered them unconstitutional.
“Indeed, it is implausible to imagine each of the fifty United States having their own state immigration policy superseding the powers inherent in the United States as a Nation,” Ezra reiterated in his written ruling.
At the time, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project said his decision reaffirmed that immigration laws are not up to the states, while adding that SB 4 would cause widespread racial profiling.
“Texas cannot override the U.S. Constitution and should stop wasting time attempting to do so,” the groups said in a joint statement to The Texas Tribune.
This lawsuit came after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed a previous legal challenge against SB 4, which was brought by immigrants and organizations that work with migrants. But instead of ruling on the constitutionality of the law, the appeals court dismissed that case last month after finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.
Texas leaders, which cheered the appeals court’s dismissal as a win for public safety, have insisted that SB 4 is valid because it mirrors federal immigration law.
In addition, they have argued that Texas has a sovereign right to defend its borders. In 2023 when the law was being proposed, there were record-high illegal border crossings, which officials said amounted to an invasion. Those figures have since dropped drastically.
During a hearing in Ezra’s court earlier this month, David Bryant with the attorney general’s office didn’t say the state was abandoning the invasion argument despite acknowledging the slower pace of illegal border crossings. Bryant did argue that the case should be dismissed because SB 4 had not taken effect and that Department of Public Safety Director Freeman Martin, the only named defendant in the lawsuit, had not decided how state police would enforce the law.
In the meantime, DPS and many law enforcement agencies across Texas have already partnered with federal immigration agents through the 287(g) program, including under the task force model that allows officers to question individuals about their immigration status during routine policing work.
Disclosure: ACLU Texas has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
This article first appeared on The Texas Tribune.
Sign Up for SA Current newsletters.
Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed
