A federal appeals court heard arguments on Wednesday regarding the temporary blocking of a sweeping and controversial new immigration law in Texas, while further litigation takes place.
Texan authorities are now empowered by Senate Bill 4 (SB4) to apprehend individuals they suspect to be unauthorized migrants. These individuals can be ordered to leave the United States or face potential imprisonment. Previously, this responsibility fell under the jurisdiction of federal agents.
Judges are empowered by the law to order migrants, regardless of their country of origin, to be transported to a port of entry and returned to Mexico.
Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, argues that SB4 is necessary to address the “dangerous” border policies of the White House. However, the Biden administration has cautioned that it will disrupt immigration enforcement and directly contradict the constitutional authority of federal immigration authorities.
Conservatives have celebrated the legislation, while civil rights and immigration advocates have expressed strong criticism towards it.
According to certain local authorities, they claim that they currently lack the necessary resources to effectively enforce the law and therefore do not intend to prioritize it.
Texas Solicitor General Aaron Lloyd Nielson argued before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday that Texas has the right to protect itself and that the federal government should not interfere.
During the court proceedings, Nielson emphasized that Texas acknowledges its crucial role in addressing the current crisis. He stated, “We are at the epicenter of this crisis, on the front line, and Texas is determined to take action.”
He claimed that the SB4 effectively mirrors federal law by prohibiting illegal border crossings at a state level.
According to Department of Justice Attorney Daniel Tenny, the enforcement of immigration law is a federal responsibility. He argued in court that Texas is interfering with the deportation processes.
According to Tenny, there are numerous actions that can be taken by a state to address the concerns raised by Texas.
The panel seemed to have differing opinions on whether to temporarily suspend SB4 while the legal proceedings regarding the dispute continue.
It is still uncertain how specific aspects of the law would interact with federal enforcement. One area of concern is what would occur if a migrant is brought to a port of entry and subsequently released by Border Patrol.
Nielson expressed that this situation is uncharted territory due to the lack of previous cases. However, he is of the opinion that these migrants could potentially be re-arrested by the state under SB4.
Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, who was appointed by George W. Bush, expressed doubt about Texas’ claims multiple times. She questioned the state’s assertion that it has the authority to remove illegal aliens, highlighting that this is not a power traditionally exercised by states.
Judge Andrew Oldham, appointed by Donald Trump and with a background as general counsel to Gov. Abbott and deputy solicitor general of Texas, showed the most empathy towards the state.
During the argument, Irma Ramirez, the third judge on the panel and the first Latina to serve on the 5th Circuit, did not pose any questions.
Legal analysts anticipate that the court will promptly make a decision, within a matter of days or weeks, regarding whether to suspend SB4 for the duration of the legal proceedings.
The U.S. Supreme Court, despite temporarily allowing the law to go into effect on Tuesday, has not officially weighed in on the merits of the state law. Whatever decision they make will most likely be brought back to the Supreme Court for further consideration.
Read More:
- South Carolina’s top player breaks elbow when team van crashes hours after the tournament
- Denial of public defender to man charged with killing police officer and process server