Judge blocks SB4, a law that would have allowed immigrants to be detained and deported in Texas; Paxton appeals

Austin – A federal judge on Thursday blocked a new Texas law that would allow police to arrest immigrants suspected of entering the United States illegally, in a victory for President Joe Biden’s administration in a dispute with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott over immigration.

Judge David Ezra’s preliminary order halted a law that was to take effect on March 5 and was announced while Biden and his potential Republican opponent, Donald Trump, were visiting the southern border of Texas to discuss immigration issues.

Also Read: What the SB4 Law Says

The Texas Attorney General’s Office immediately appealed the ruling, according to a statement issued Thursday.

The ruling rejected Texas’ efforts to control immigration on several fronts, ignoring Republican claims that record levels of illegal crossings are causing an “invasion” of the state’s southern border. Ezra also said the law violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, conflicts with federal immigration law and hinders US foreign relations and its treaty obligations.

It’s the second time in six months that Israel has blocked Abbott’s measures to control immigration at the border, while also issuing a ruling against a floating barrier placed by Texas on the Rio Grande (or Grande).

Subscribe to the Al Dia newsletter to receive a summary of North Texas news

Allowing Texas to “permanently supersede federal guidelines” because of the alleged invasion would be “a nullification of federal law and authority, an idea that is unconstitutional and has been categorically rejected by federal courts since the Civil War.” , the judge wrote.

Critics have said the Texas measure is the most dramatic attempt by a state to restrict immigration since a 2010 Arizona law that opponents derided as a “show me your papers” law. The US Supreme Court partially struck down the Arizona law, but some Texas Republican leaders want that ruling reviewed.

Also Read: Bishop of Dallas Shows Support for Immigrants Before Texas SB4 Law

In his decision, Ezra wrote that the Texas law was preempted by the decision in the Arizona case, adding that there were “striking similarities” between the two laws. He also rejected claims by state officials that the large number of illegal border crossings constituted an “invasion”, saying that there was a novel interpretation of the Constitution’s aggression clause and allowing the law to be enacted would authorize the state to get involved. in war

Although some may sympathize with accusations by Texas authorities regarding the federal government’s handling of immigration policies, that is not an excuse to violate the Constitution, the judge wrote.

In a statement, Abbott blamed Biden for the influx of migrants and warned that “we will not give up in our fight to save our state… and our nation.”

“Texas have a right to defend themselves against President Biden’s continued failure to fulfill his duty to protect our state from incursions along our southern border,” he added, saying he believed the case would eventually go to court. Supreme.

Civil rights groups suing the state have argued that, if allowed to take effect, the law — called Senate Bill 4 (SB 4) — could result in civil rights violations and racial discrimination. They released a joint statement in which they celebrated the decision.

“With today’s decision, the court sent a clear message to Texas: SB 4 is unconstitutional and the criminalization of black, brown, indigenous and immigrant communities will not be tolerated,” said Jennifer Babby, director of advocacy and legal services at Las Americas. Immigrant Advocacy Center, a nonprofit group that advocates for immigrants.

The Biden administration’s lawsuit over the law is one of several legal showdowns between the White House and Texas over how far the state can go to prevent migrants from crossing the border.

Under the decriminalization law, state troopers can arrest people suspected of entering the United States without authorization. Once in custody, they can submit to a Texas judge’s order to leave the country or face misdemeanor charges for entering US territory without authorization. Migrants who leave the country after being ordered can be rearrested and charged with more serious crimes.

Texas has been arresting immigrants for years under a more limited program that relies on arrests for illegal entry.

At the hearing on February 15, Ezra expressed skepticism when the state presented its case. Ezra, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, said he feared the country could become a union of states enforcing their own immigration laws. In his ruling he expanded on that idea, adding that “SB4 threatens the fundamental idea that the United States should regulate immigration with one voice.”

Republicans supporting the legislation have said it would not apply to migrants already in the United States because of the two-year statute of limitations on illegal entry charges, and would only apply along the Texas border with Mexico.

Other Republican governors have expressed support for Abbott, who has said the federal government is not doing enough to enforce immigration laws.

Among other things, Texas placed a floating barrier in the Rio Grande, erected barbed wire along the border with Mexico, and prevented Border Patrol agents from entering a riverside park in Eagle Pass that they used.