A federal judge in Houston has issued a temporary block on a newly enacted Texas state law that would have empowered Texas law enforcement to arrest migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border unlawfully.
The law, known as SB4 and slated to take effect next Tuesday, has been deemed by U.S. Judge David Ezra, based in Austin, as “patently unconstitutional” and conflicting with crucial provisions of federal immigration law, potentially harming the United States’ foreign relations and treaty obligations.
Judge Ezra emphasized that immigration enforcement falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction, as outlined in a preliminary injunction preventing the law’s enforcement until the legal proceedings conclude.
In his ruling, Judge Ezra articulated concerns that SB4 jeopardizes the unified regulation of immigration enforcement in the United States. He warned of potential dire consequences for the federal government if the law were to be implemented, cautioning against the creation of an inconsistent patchwork of immigration rules across various states.
Moreover, Judge Ezra underscored that Texas’s enforcement of SB4 could lead to violations of the U.S. Constitution and the country’s treaty obligations if migrants eligible for political asylum were arrested and deported.
In response to the ruling, Texas has appealed to the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to local media reports.
The legal challenge against the Texas law was initiated by immigrant rights groups, who argue that SB4 infringes upon the federal government’s sole authority over immigration enforcement. Furthermore, they contend that the law would impede immigrants from seeking asylum, a civil right they possess regardless of their method of entry into the United States.
The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Texas Civil Rights Project on behalf of El Paso County, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and American Gateways, challenges the constitutionality of SB4.
Under the provisions of SB4, Texas law enforcement officers would have been authorized to arrest migrants crossing the border unlawfully. Subsequently, detained migrants could either agree to leave the country per a Texas judge’s order or face prosecution on misdemeanor charges, carrying a maximum sentence of six months in prison. Repeat offenders could face felony charges, punishable by two to 20 years in jail.
The controversial law also mandates state judges to order convicted migrants to return to Mexico, with local law enforcement tasked with transporting them to the border. Charges could be dropped if a migrant agrees to voluntary return to Mexico.
In defense of Texas’s position, attorney Ryan Walters argued that the influx of migrants, some of whom are smuggled by drug cartels, constitutes an invasion, invoking Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which allows states to defend themselves in the event of an invasion.
