Federal appeals court keeps Texas immigration law SB4 temporarily blocked

Texas still cannot temporarily enforce a controversial new law that would authorize police to arrest and detain migrants suspected of illegally crossing the border from Mexico, a federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday.

The panel split, 2-1, on the decision for Texas’ request for a stay of a U.S. district judge’s preliminary injunction of the law pending appeal.

Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, and Judge Irma Ramirez, who was nominated by President Joe Biden, joined in the order Tuesday night ruling against Texas’ request. Richman wrote for the majority that it is the president’s role “to decide whether, and if so, how to pursue noncitizens illegally present in the United States."

Judge Andrew Oldham, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, dissented.

“The State is forever helpless: Texas can do nothing because Congress apparently did everything, yet federal non-enforcement means Congress’s everything is nothing,” Oldham wrote in his 70-page dissent. “And second, while the dispute before us is entirely hypothetical, the consequences of today’s decision will be very real.”

Texas attorneys can return to the Supreme Court to challenge the 5th Circuit’s ruling but haven’t indicated yet that they would do so.

The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court is a win for the Biden administration and immigration advocacy groups, who initially challenged the law in January.

They argued that the state law, known as Senate Bill 4, conflicts with the federal government’s immigration policy and violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which says that federal laws preempt conflicting state laws.

In court filings, Texas contends that the state “is the nation’s first-line defense against transnational violence and has been forced to deal with the deadly consequences of the federal government’s inability or unwillingness to protect the border.”

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in December signed the law that, when in effect, would authorize state police to arrest migrants and charge them with a misdemeanor on the first offense if they are suspected of crossing the border illegally. During the court process, migrants could be ordered to return to Mexico or face prosecution if they didn’t agree to return.

The law was supposed to go into effect on March 5 but has been delayed by a whirlwind of court orders.

The Supreme Court set it on ice for two weeks while the justices considered emergency requests from the Biden administration and immigrant rights groups to keep it paused while legal challenges proceed.

When it did rule two weeks later, the high court effectively gave Texas the green light to enforce the new state law effective immediately. But hours later, the appeals court reinstated an injunction blocking the law's implementation.

The 5th Circuit is set to hear arguments on April 3 over the constitutionality of the law.

The legal showdown over the Texas law is part of a broader fight between the Biden administration and Texas, who continue to clash on border policy as the influx of migrants has sparked nationwide controversy.

Texas is embroiled in two other major court battles with the DOJ, over the state’s use of razor wire and floating buoys along the border designed to block migrants from entry. In May, the full bench of the 5th Circuit will rehear the case involving access and river border buoys, allowing the floating barrier to remain in place in the meantime.