Texas immigration law SB4 blocked by federal judge

Texas' new immigration law, SB4, blocked by judge

A federal judge blocked Texas from enforcing SB4, a new state law on illegal immigration. The law allows police to arrest illegal border crossers on misdemeanor charges.

AUSTIN, Texas - A federal judge blocked Texas from enforcing a law that allows police to arrest illegal border crossers on misdemeanor charges.

The ruling came down hours before President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump arrived in Texas for separate border visits.

Biden is in Brownsville, accusing Republicans of sabotaging a bipartisan border security bill, while Trump is in Eagle Pass with Governor Greg Abbott reviewing state border security operations.

The preliminary injunction granted by U.S. District Judge David Ezra, a Ronald Reagan appointee, pauses a law that was set to take effect March 5.

The ruling from Austin is a blow to Gov. Abbott's attempts to stop illegal border crossings. Texas officials filed an immediate appeal.

Opponents have called the Texas measure the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since a 2010 Arizona law that opponents rebuked as a "Show Me Your Papers" bill. The U.S. Supreme Court partially struck down the Arizona law, but some Texas Republican leaders, who often refer to the migrant influx as an "invasion," want that ruling to get a second look.

Ezra cited the Constitution’s supremacy clause and U.S. Supreme Court decisions as factors that contributed to his ruling. He said the Texas law would conflict with federal immigration law, and the nation’s foreign relations and treaty obligations.

"The position Texas has taken about this law is we're not interfering with anything, we're just trying to help. These are federal laws, it's the law of the land. We're just trying to enforce the law of the land and Judge Ezra rejected that and said, ‘No, enforcement of a law is something only the maker of the law can do.’ The federal government makes this law, the federal government chooses how, when, and who enforces it. Those are inseparable," constitutional attorney David Coale said.

Allowing Texas to "permanently supersede federal directives" due to a so-called 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," the judge wrote.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision on the Arizona law, Ezra wrote that the Texas law was preempted, and he struck down state officials’ claims that large numbers of illegal border crossings constituted an "invasion."

Coale said that part of the ruling surprised him.

"He also went a step further and said one thing more than I might have expected him to, which is to reject Texas' argument that this is in response to an invasion, trying to take advantage of some old provisions in our Constitution about that," Coale explained. "He said, ‘Nope, no invasion,’ and that's an additional holding that'll probably get some additional scrutiny by the Court of Appeals."

The lawsuit is among several legal battles between Texas and Biden’s administration over how far the state can go to try to prevent migrants from crossing the border.

At a Feb. 15 hearing, Ezra expressed skepticism as the state pleaded its case for what is known as Senate Bill 4. He also said he was somewhat sympathetic to the concerns expressed by Abbott and other state officials about the large number of illegal crossings.

Does SB4 violate or support the U.S. constitution?

A federal judge will hear arguments Thursday on a push to block a controversial new immigration law in Texas. It would give any law enforcement officer the authority to make an arrest if they suspect a person is in the U.S. illegally. At the center of it is the question, does it violate or support the constitution? Constitutional law attorney David Coale breaks down the arguments.

Ezra said he feared the United States could become a confederation of states enforcing their own immigration laws. "That is the same thing the Civil War said you can’t do," Ezra told the attorneys.

Civil rights groups, who also sued the state, have argued the law could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling.

Republicans who back the law have said it would not target immigrants already living in the U.S. because of the two-year statute of limitations on the illegal entry charge and would be enforced only along the state’s border with Mexico.

Gov. Abbott issued a strong statement saying, in part: "Texas has a right to defend itself because of President Biden's ongoing failure to fulfill his duty to protect our state from the invasion at our southern border," adding "...we will not back down in our fight to protect our state - and our nation - from President Biden’s border crisis."

Attorney General Ken Paxton immediately filed an appeal which will push the judge's preliminary injunction ruling up to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"There are judges on that court that are very interested in these ideas and the position Texas has taken about them. Of course, they're also mindful of what the supreme court says," Coale added.

The Supreme Court has said states cannot enforce immigration laws without federal approval.

Texas is trying to push the envelope on the Constitution and the border crisis.

Expect whichever side loses at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal to the highest court in the land.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

U.S. Border Security Texas Immigration