Subscribe to receive the daily Inside Washington email, which includes exclusive coverage and analysis of the US, directly to your inbox.
Get our free Inside Washington email
The highest court in the United States has approved a polarizing policy on immigration in Texas, giving permission for authorities at a local level to detain individuals who illegally cross the border between the US and Mexico.
The court has denied the Biden administration’s emergency request with a 6-3 decision, just one day after issuing an order to suspend SB4.
Pending any ongoing court cases, the law is currently able to come into effect. However, there is a possibility for it to be stopped in the future.
The conservative majority of the court did not explain their decision to deny the stay. In a separate opinion, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh stated that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet made a decision.
“In the absence of a prompt decision, the applicants have the option to appeal back to this court,” stated Justice Barrett.
The Justices with more progressive views disagreed with the ruling. In her statement, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that it will only lead to more confusion and problems in enforcing immigration laws.
SB4 makes it a crime for individuals to cross the US–Mexico border illegally and gives law enforcement the authority to charge them with a Class B misdemeanour which carries a maximum sentencing of six months in jail. Second offenders could face second-degree felony charges and up to 20 years in prison.
On January 31, 2024, a soldier from the Texas National Guard placed more razor wire along the border between the U.S. and Mexico in El Paso, Texas, across from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.
The interim ruling is a victory for Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who actively advocated for stricter laws to prevent migrants from entering the country and to penalize those who do.
The bill has been criticized as being an excessively aggressive anti-immigration law.
In December, Mr Abbott passed a bill which was expected to come into effect earlier this month. However, both the Justice Department and immigration advocacy groups filed petitions to federal courts in order to temporarily stop the law from being enforced. The Fifth Circuit decided to allow the law to take effect while it is being litigated.
The Biden administration recently requested a suspension of the law from the Supreme Court, which was granted earlier this month and last week.
However, the conservative majority announced on Tuesday that they will postpone making a formal ruling or statement on the emergency order until the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals does.
Justice Sotomayor objected to the conservative justices’ ruling to delay intervention until the Fifth Circuit reaches a decision.
Justice Sotomayor stated that while the Court did not offer a stance on the legitimacy of Texas’s law and deferred to the lower court’s handling of the case, the Court of Appeals exceeded its authority by implementing an unfounded and indefinite administrative hold that changed the current state of affairs.
The Texan government contended that they had the right to uphold SB4, citing Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution which permits states to take action in their own defense if they are under physical attack.
The Department of Justice stated that the legislation is contradictory to existing federal laws, which is typically the agency in charge of overseeing immigration enforcement.
The ACLU of Texas’s legal director, Adriana Piñon, stated that they do not agree with the court’s ruling and believe that enforcing this law, which goes against the Constitution and is very anti-immigrant, will have negative consequences for both citizens and the legal system in Texas. Piñon also mentioned that SB4 endangers fundamental civil and human rights of all individuals, regardless of citizenship status, and advised anyone who may be targeted by this law, especially those who fear being racially profiled, to be aware of their rights. The organization has pledged to persist in their efforts to stop this discriminatory law.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand. Can you please provide the specific text that needs to be reworded?
