A federal appeals court has intervened to halt Texas’ efforts to arrest migrants suspected of entering the United States illegally, just hours after the Supreme Court greenlit the implementation of the state’s stringent new immigration law.
The ruling by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals comes after a panel within the same court previously allowed Texas to enforce the law, known as SB4, by placing a temporary hold on a lower court’s injunction. However, a different panel of judges from the appeals court revoked that hold ahead of scheduled arguments on Wednesday.
Notably, Texas authorities had not yet reported any arrests made under the law at the time of the appeals court’s decision.
Earlier on Tuesday, a divided Supreme Court granted Texas permission to initiate enforcement of the law, which grants police expansive authority to arrest migrants suspected of unlawfully crossing the border, amid ongoing legal battles over its validity.
The Supreme Court’s decision rejected an emergency appeal from the Biden administration, which contends that the law violates federal jurisdiction and could lead to widespread confusion and disorder.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott lauded the law, which empowers any Texas law enforcement officer to apprehend migrants for illegal entry and authorizes judges to order their removal from the United States.
However, the Supreme Court’s ruling did not delve into the law’s constitutionality, instead deferring the matter to the appeals court, which subsequently issued its ruling late Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Mexico’s government vehemently opposed the law, vowing not to accept the return of any migrants from Texas under its provisions, which it adamantly denounces.
The Department of Homeland Security affirmed its commitment to challenging the law in court, asserting that it would only exacerbate the strain on its already overburdened resources. Additionally, the agency stated its refusal to participate in enforcing SB4.
While the majority of the Supreme Court did not provide a detailed explanation for its decision, liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, with Sotomayor sharply criticizing the ruling for potentially disrupting the traditional balance between federal and state authority.
Critics view the law as one of the most far-reaching attempts by a state to regulate immigration since a controversial Arizona law more than a decade ago, parts of which were invalidated by the Supreme Court. Concerns have also been raised about potential civil rights violations and racial profiling resulting from the implementation of the Texas law.
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre condemned the law as “harmful and unconstitutional,” calling on congressional Republicans to address border security through federal legislation.
Texas contends that it has the prerogative to take action against what it perceives as an ongoing crisis at the southern border.
The law empowers police in bordering counties to make arrests upon witnessing an illegal border crossing, according to the Sheriffs’ Association of Texas. It could also be applied elsewhere in the state if an individual is arrested for another offense, and their fingerprint links them to a suspected re-entry violation during jail processing.
While arrests for illegal border crossings reached record highs in December before declining by half in January, attributed partly to seasonal factors and heightened enforcement, official figures for February have yet to be released by the federal government.