Texas SB4 immigration law allows Supreme Court to detain and jail migrants as legal battle rages on

The Supreme Court has allowed Texas officials to enforce a state immigration law known as SB4, which criminalizes unauthorized migration at the state level. The law was temporarily blocked by a federal judge last month but was then allowed to go into effect by the 5th Circuit. The Biden administration has argued that SB4 conflicts with federal law and the Constitution and has criticized the court’s decision to let the law take effect. The law allows Texas law enforcement officials to stop, jail, and prosecute migrants on illegal entry and reentry charges, and also gives judges the authority to order migrants to return to Mexico.
Governor Greg Abbott has supported SB4 as a measure to discourage illegal immigration, accusing the federal government of not doing enough to deter migrants from crossing the border. The White House has criticized the law as harmful and unconstitutional, while Abbott has welcomed the court’s ruling allowing SB4 to take effect. The liberal justices on the Supreme Court dissented from the decision, with Justice Sotomayor accusing the 5th Circuit of abusing its discretion and warning of the potential harm caused by SB4 in disrupting foreign relations and impeding federal enforcement efforts. Justice Kagan also disagreed with the court’s decision to allow SB4 to be enforced.

The Justice Department has argued that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility and has raised concerns about the negative impact of SB4 on relations with Mexico. The law has been denounced by the Mexican government as anti-immigrant, leading to the rejection of migrants returned by Texas. In recent years, Texas has taken strong measures against illegal immigration, including busing migrants to Democratic-led cities, erecting barriers along the border, and filing lawsuits against federal immigration programs. The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of SB4 but allowed it to take effect while legal proceedings continue. Justice Barrett’s opinion focused on the technical aspect of the temporary stay issued by the 5th Circuit, emphasizing that the court should not intervene in preliminary steps of legal proceedings.

The dissenting liberal justices, Sotomayor and Kagan, criticized the court’s decision to allow SB4 to be enforced, highlighting the potential negative consequences of the law on various aspects of immigration enforcement and migrant protection. Sotomayor accused the 5th Circuit of disregarding the constitutional issues raised by the law and warned of significant disruptions caused by SB4. The decision to let the law take effect was seen as a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to address immigration issues at the federal level. The court’s ruling has raised concerns about the balance of power between the federal government and the states in immigration enforcement. Despite criticism from the White House and the dissenting justices, Governor Abbott has praised the court’s decision as a positive development.