A federal judge in Texas on Thursday blocked the Republican-led state’s new law giving officials broad powers to arrest, prosecute and order the removal of people who illegally cross the US-Mexico border.
US District Judge David Ezra in Austin agreed with Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration that the law known as SB4 interferes with the Federal Government’s powers under the US Constitution to enforce US immigration laws and the ability of migrants to apply for asylum and other humanitarian aid.
Rio Grande separates the US and Mexican border in Eagle Pass, Texas, US, on 3rd February, 2024. REUTERS/Maria Alejandra Cardona/File photo
Ezra blocked the law, which was set to take effect on 5th March, pending the outcome of the Biden administration’s lawsuit challenging its legality.
The judge ruled on the same day that Biden and his Republican predecessor and likely opponent in the 5th November US election, Donald Trump, were making dueling appearances along the US-Mexico border in Texas to address the large influx of migrants that has become a major issue for US voters.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, in a statement said the state is appealing the decision.
“Texas has a clear right to defend itself from the drug smugglers, human traffickers, cartels, and legions of illegal aliens crossing into our state as a consequence of the Biden Administration’s deliberate policy choices,” he said.
The US Department of Justice declined to comment.
The Texas law would make it a state crime to illegally enter or re-enter Texas from a foreign country and would give state and local law enforcement the power to arrest and prosecute violators. It also would allow state judges to order that individuals leave the country, with prison sentences up to 20 years for those who refuse to comply.
The state’s adoption of the law escalated an ongoing battle between Texas and the federal government over control of the southern border.
Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott has blamed Biden for a record increase in illegal border crossings and has said the state’s actions, including installing razor wire fencing at the border and a floating barrier in the Rio Grande river, were necessary because of federal inaction.
The Biden administration and civil rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union sued to block the law in January, shortly after Abbott signed it. The lawsuits, which were consolidated, argue that the law infringes on the longstanding and complex scheme under federal law governing the entry of non-citizens into the United States.
We rely on our readers to fund Sight's work - become a financial supporter today!
For more information, head to our Subscriber's page.
Ezra agreed in his 114-page decision on Thursday, citing a 2012 US Supreme Court ruling that struck down key provisions of an Arizona immigration law. The court in that decision said states cannot make laws that interfere with the federal government’s ability to enforce complex US immigration laws.
Ezra also rejected claims by Texas that the growing number of migrants amounts to an “invasion” triggering the state’s constitutional right to defend itself and secure its borders.
“Even accepting that some small number of immigrants do traffic drugs or have cartel affiliations, Texas cannot genuinely maintain that noncitizens crossing the border are an organized military force aimed at conquest or plunder,” wrote Ezra, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan.
Civil rights groups that sued to block the law praised the ruling, saying the Texas law represents the most extreme anti-immigrant law ever passed by a US state.
“While this is only the first step in abolishing the law, people across the state can breathe a sigh of relief knowing they will not be needlessly arrested or deported,” said Aron Thorn of the Texas Civil Rights Project.
