Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has taken action to temporarily halt Texas’ stringent immigration law, SB 4, following a request from the Biden administration for court intervention.
The administrative stay, issued by Justice Alito, will remain in effect until March 13 at 5:00 P.M. (EDT), allowing the justices time to deliberate on the matter. Additionally, Justice Alito has provided Texas with until the evening of March 11 to respond to the Biden administration’s request.
The Justice Department submitted a request to the Supreme Court earlier today, seeking to overturn a stay issued by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. This stay had overruled an injunction granted by a lower court last Thursday, temporarily halting the implementation of the law.
In the filing, lawyers from the Justice Department emphasized the significant impact of SB 4, stating, “Absent this Court’s intervention, SB4 will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. on March 10, 2024, profoundly altering the status quo that has existed between the United States and the States in the context of immigration for almost 150 years.”
SB 4, if implemented, would grant local and state law enforcement the authority to arrest migrants suspected of crossing into Texas illegally. It would also empower judges to order migrants to be transported to a port of entry and returned to Mexico, irrespective of their country of origin.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott had previously celebrated the reversal of last week’s ruling, expressing his support for the law’s enforcement. However, the Biden administration has consistently argued that immigration law falls within the purview of the federal government, not local jurisdictions.
The filing with the Supreme Court reiterated this stance, stating, “This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested ‘solely in the Federal Government.'”
Despite Texas’ assertion that SB 4 is within its constitutional rights, the Justice Department contends that the State War Clause does not apply to the current situation, emphasizing that a surge of unauthorized immigration does not constitute an invasion within the meaning of the Constitution.
Last week’s ruling by Judge David A. Ezra echoed similar sentiments, emphasizing that surges in immigration do not constitute an invasion, nor does enforcing SB 4 equate to engaging in war.
If allowed to proceed, SB 4 could lead to a patchwork of inconsistent immigration regulations across states, threatening the uniform regulation of immigration throughout the country, as noted by Judge Ezra.
Governor Abbott signed SB 4 into law in December, sparking concerns among immigrant civil rights organizations about potential racial profiling and harsh penalties for offenders. Judge Ezra also highlighted the irreparable harm that the law could cause if implemented, further underscoring the complexity and significance of the legal battle surrounding SB 4.
