Texas’ recent plans to arrest migrants who enter the U.S. illegally ( mainly from the Mexico border) and order them to leave the country has lead to a legal battle between the state government and the centre over the federal government’s control over immigration before the Supreme Court.
An order was issued on Monday by Justice Samuel Alito that puts the newly proposed Texas law on hold for at least next week, essentially, temporarily blocking the law. However, the high court considers what opponents of this law have called the most dramatic attempt by a state to police migration since an Arizona law more than a decade ago.
The law is known as Senate Bill 4, had been set to take effect Saturday under a decision by the conservative-leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Alito’s order pushed that date back until March 13 and came just hours after the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
“Make no mistake: S.B. 4 bypasses federal immigration authority and threatens the integrity of our nation’s constitution and laws,” a coalition of groups that sued over the law, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.
Abott’s controversial law
The Republican governor Greg Abbott signed the law in December 2023 as part of a series of increasing measures on the border that have tried to test boundaries of how far a state in a federation can go to keep migrants from entering the country or in the specific state.
What would this Anti- Migrants Law do?
The law would allow Texas state officers to arrest people suspected of entering the country illegally.
People who would be arrested could then either agree to a Texas judge’s order to leave the country and go back to their original state or face a bad behaviour charge for entering the U.S. illegally.
Migrants who don’t leave after being ordered to do so could be arrested again and charged with a more serious felony and will be deported.
Arguments in the SCOTUS
The Justice Department told the Supreme Court that the law would profoundly alter “the status quo that has existed between the United States federal government and the member states that make the union in the context of migrantsfor almost 150 years.” It went on to argue that the law would have “significant and immediate adverse effects” on the country’s relationship with Mexico and Latin American countries and “create chaos” in enforcing federal immigration laws in Texas.
The federal government cited the 2012 Supreme Court ruling on an Arizonan law that would have allowed police to arrest people for federal migrants violations.
The Supreme Court gave Texas until March 11 to respond
In a statement made on Monday, the Texas Attorney General’s Office said the state’s law mirrored federal law and “was adopted to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border, which hurts Texans more than anyone else.”
In a 114-page ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge David Ezra rebuked Texas’ immigration enforcement and brushed off claims by Republicans about an ongoing “invasion ” along the southern border due to record-high illegal crossings.
Ezra also added that the proposed law violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy and will cause conflicts with federal immigration law and could get in the way of U.S. foreign relations and treaty obligations.
According to Ezra’s ruling, allowing Texas to go against federal law due to an “invasion” would only amount to not adhering to federal law and authority.
Republicans who back the law have said they would not target immigrants that are already living in the U.S.A because the two-year statute of limitations on the illegal entry charge would be enforced only along the state’s border with Mexico.