The Biden administration is suing the State of Texas over a new state law that would empower state and local police officers to arrest migrants who cross from Mexico without authorization.
On Thursday, a federal court in Austin temporarily blocked implementation of the law, which was set to go into effect on March 5, ruling that the statute ran afoul of federal law and the U.S. Constitution. The judge, in issuing a preliminary injunction, said that Texas would very likely lose the case on the merits.
The case has far-reaching implications for the future of immigration law and border enforcement and has been closely watched across the country. It comes amid fierce political fighting between the parties, and within them, over how to handle illegal immigration. And it follows the impeachment by House Republicans of the Homeland security secretary, and the failure of a bipartisan Senate deal to bolster security at the border.
Texas argued that its law was necessary to deter migrants from crossing illegally, as has happened in record numbers over the past year. The Biden administration argues that the law conflicts with federal law and violates the U.S. Constitution, which gives the federal government authority over immigration matters.
The judge hearing the case, David A. Ezra of the Western District of Texas, was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan.
“No matter how emphatic Texas’ criticism of the federal government’s handling of immigration on the border may be to some,” Judge Ezra wrote in his 114-page decision, “disagreement with the federal government’s immigration policy does not justify a violation of the Supremacy Clause” of the Constitution.
The state of Texas immediately appealed the decision. “This case will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement.
What does the Texas law say?
The law passed by the Texas Legislature, known as Senate Bill 4, makes it a crime to cross into Texas from a foreign country anywhere other than a legal port of entry, usually the international bridges from Mexico.
Under the law, known as S.B. 4, any migrant seen by the police wading across the Rio Grande could be arrested and charged in state court with a misdemeanor on the first offense. A second offense would be a felony. After being arrested, migrants could be ordered during the court process to return to Mexico or face prosecution if they don’t agree to go.
Texas lawmakers said they had designed S.B. 4 to closely follow federal law, which already bars illegal entry. The new law effectively allows state law enforcement officers all over Texas to conduct what until now has been the U.S. Border Patrol’s work.
It allows for migrants to be prosecuted for the new offense up to two years after they cross into Texas.
How does it challenge federal immigration authority?
Judge Ezra, in his decision on the injunction, found that the Texas law conflicted with numerous federal laws passed by Congress that provide for a process for handling immigration proceedings and deportations.
And, he found, the law interferes with the federal government’s foreign diplomacy role, pointing to complaints already lodged against Texas’ border actions by the government of Mexico. The Mexican authorities have said that they opposed any legislation that would allow the state or local authorities to send migrants, most of whom are not Mexican, back over the border to Mexico.
The fight over the law is likely to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, legal experts have said. If so, it will give the 6-to-3 conservative majority a chance to revisit a 2012 case stemming from Arizona’s attempt to take on immigration enforcement responsibilities. That case, Arizona v United States, was narrowly decided in favor of the power of the federal government to set immigration policy.
Immigrant organizations, civil rights advocates and some Texas Democrats have criticized the law because it could make it…
This article was originally published by a www.nytimes.com . Read the Original article here. .