On Thursday, a federal judge ruled against a Texas law that would have given police and law enforcement officers the sweeping power to arrest, detain, and deport migrants who are suspected of illegally entering the country.
EAGLE PASS, TEXAS - SEPTEMBER 30: As seen from an aerial view a U.S. Border Patrol agent supervises as immigrants walk into the United States after crossing the Rio Grande from Mexico on September 30, 2023 in Eagle Pass, Texas. The agent had cut coils of razor wire to let them pass through for processing. Immigration and border security have become major issues in ongoing negotiations to fund the U.S. government. A recent surge in immigrant crossings has overwhelmed border authorities. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)
The legal victory is indeed a boon for the Biden administration and a definitive rejection of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's immigration enforcement effort.
US District Judge David Ezra's ruling is a preliminary injunction and pauses the law, which was set to take effect on March 5. It comes as President Joe Biden and his Republican challenger Donald Trump travel to the US-Mexico border to pitch their plans to fix immigration, subsequently taking shots at one another as well.
The Texas attorney general's office immediately appealed the ruling via a statement. The ruling puts down Republican claims of an ongoing swarm of immigration along the southern border.
Judge Ezra also stated that the law violates the Constitution's supremacy clause, conflicts with federal immigration laws, and may cause harm to US foreign relations and treaty obligations.
This is Ezra's second time coming up against Gov. Abbott's border policies after earlier ruling against a floating barrier the state erected in the Rio Grande.
"...It Is Not An Excuse To Violate The Constitution"
The judge says the law would have allowed Texas to "permanently supersede federal directives" due to a so-called invasion would "amount to nullification of federal law and authority - a notion that is antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts since the Civil War," the judge wrote. Opponents of the would-be Texas measure call it the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since 2010 when an Arizona law suggested similarly draconian measures.
The Arizona law was partially struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court but some Texas GOP politicians agreed with the gist of it. Judge Ezra wrote in his decision that the law was preempted by the US Supreme Court's decision in the Arizona case, adding that the two laws were very similar.
He also rebutted claims floated by state officials that large numbers of illegal border crossings are an invasion, saying such a novel interpretation of the Constitution's invasion clause allowing for the law to stand would, in effect, be like permitting a state to engage in war.
"Although some may empathize with Texas officials' claims regarding the federal government's handling of immigration policy, it is not an excuse to violate the Constitution," the judge wrote in a statement.
Abbott blamed the influx of migrants on Biden and said "We will not back down in our fight to protect our state - and our nation."
"Texas has the right to defend itself because of President Biden's ongoing failure to fulfill his duty to protect our state from the invasion at our southern border," he wrote, noting that he believes the case will ultimately end up before the Supreme Court.
Civil rights groups who have sued the state argue that the law, if allowed to stand, could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling.
"With today's decision, the court sent a clear message to Texas: S.B. 4 is unconstitutional and criminalizing Black, Brown, Indigenous, and immigrant communities will not be tolerated," said Jennifer Babaie, director of advocacy and legal services with Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center.
