A federal appeals court has issued a temporary stay on a lower court’s ruling that blocked the enforcement of a contentious immigration law in Texas. This decision could potentially allow the law, known as Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), to be implemented later this week if the Supreme Court does not intervene.
Last week, a federal judge in Austin, Texas, halted the implementation of SB 4, which aimed to empower state law enforcement to arrest and detain individuals suspected of entering the country unlawfully. Judge David Alan Ezra, in his decision to block the law, expressed concerns that allowing SB 4 to proceed could pave the way for other states to enact their own immigration laws.
Texas promptly appealed the ruling, with Governor Greg Abbott vowing to continue efforts to safeguard the state and the nation from what he described as President Biden’s border crisis.
This weekend, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of Judge Ezra’s decision but delayed its ruling for seven days, providing an opportunity for the Biden administration to seek Supreme Court intervention.
As it stands, the law remains blocked until March 9, pending any action by the Supreme Court. Its original implementation date was set for March 5.
SB 4, signed into law by Governor Abbott in December, has prompted concerns among immigration advocates about potential racial profiling and increased detentions and deportations by Texas state authorities, given that Latinos make up a significant portion of the state’s population.
El Paso County, which joined the Department of Justice in challenging Texas over SB 4, argued that enforcing the law would strain its jail system and commended Judge Ezra’s decision to block it.
The White House criticized SB 4 as “harmful and unconstitutional” following Judge Ezra’s ruling last week.
Texas, on the other hand, contends that SB 4 does not conflict with federal law and asserts its right to defend against what it terms an “invasion.”
In a parallel case in 2012, the Supreme Court invalidated parts of a similar law in Arizona, commonly known as the “Show me your papers” law. While the Court upheld the federal government’s authority to block certain provisions, it left intact a contentious provision allowing police to check an individual’s immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence.
