Federal Court Halts Implementation of Texas Statute Allowing Migrant Arrests by Police – Sky Bulletin

In a recent development from AUSTIN, Texas reported by the AP, a federal judge has issued a restraining order halting a Texas law that expanded police authority to detain migrants accused of illegal entry into the United States. This ruling is a key development in the ongoing clash between the Biden administration and Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, over immigration control protocols.

The temporary injunction delivered by U.S. District Judge David Ezra halts the enforcement of a law scheduled to take effect on March 5. This occurred concurrently with visits by President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump—Biden’s probable Republican contender in the upcoming November elections—to the southern Texas border to discuss immigration matters. An appeal by Texas authorities is anticipated.

Critics have decried the Texas statute as the most audacious step by a state to self-regulate immigration since Arizona’s contentious 2010 law, which faced severe backlash as the “Show Me Your Papers” policy. While the U.S. Supreme Court had partially annulled the Arizona law, several Texas GOP leaders are urging a reevaluation of that decision.

As part of his ruling rationale, Ezra pointed to the supremacy clause of the Constitution and past decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. He voiced concerns that the Texas statute would conflict with federal immigration regulations, potentially affecting the nation’s international affairs and contravening treaty responsibilities.

Ezra’s decision explicitly stated that permitting Texas to “permanently supersede federal directives” under the pretext of an invasion would effectively “nullify federal law and authority,” a concept antithetical to the Constitution—a premise federal courts have rejected since the Civil War era.

This legal confrontation is part of a broader array of lawsuits between Texas and the Biden administration regarding the extent of the state’s powers in preventing border crossings.

The contested measure authorizes state law enforcement personnel to detain individuals suspected of unlawful entry into the U.S. Once apprehended, migrants would either assent to departure under a Texas judge’s decree or face misdemeanor charges for illegal U.S. entry. Failure to depart after a judicial order could lead to subsequent arrests and more severe felony charges.

During a legal hearing on February 15, Judge Ezra aired his doubts about the state’s arguments favoring Senate Bill 4 but also acknowledged the state’s concerns—voiced by Abbott—over the substantial number of illegal border crossings.

Appointed by Ronald Reagan, Ezra expressed concern about the United States potentially devolving into a coalition of states each enforcing distinct immigration statutes. He referenced the Civil War in asserting that such a scenario would be impermissible.

Civil rights organizations opposing the state have argued that the law could lead to civil liberties breaches and racial profiling.

Republican proponents assert the law would not target settled immigrants given the two-year limitations period for prosecuting illegal entry and insist enforcement would be restricted to the state’s proximity to the Mexican border.

The clash between Texas and the Biden administration has continued this year over jurisdictional control of the border with other Republican governors extending support to Abbott, who argues that the federal government has been lax in enforcing immigration regulations.

Among Texas’ unilateral border security measures are the deployment of a floating barrier on the Rio Grande, the installation of razor wire along the U.S.-Mexico boundary, and prohibiting Border Patrol agents from using a riverfront park in Eagle Pass that was previously a processing site for migrants.