In a decision rendered late Tuesday night, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, headquartered in New Orleans, upheld a lower court’s injunction against a contentious Texas immigration statute, maintaining the status quo while legal proceedings continue.
The three-judge panel, in a split decision of 2-1, rejected the state’s appeal shortly after hearing arguments regarding Texas’s request to suspend a federal judge’s injunction of Senate Bill 4 (SB 4). This state legislation, enacted earlier this year by Governor Greg Abbott, criminalizes unauthorized entry into Texas outside designated ports of entry. SB 4 confers the authority upon state and local law enforcement to detain individuals suspected of residing in the U.S. unlawfully, empowering judges to order their deportation. Noncompliance with removal orders could lead to up to 20 years of imprisonment in state correctional facilities.
The consolidated case before the appeals court was brought by the United States Department of Justice, El Paso County, and organizations offering assistance to undocumented individuals within the U.S. Defendants in the lawsuit include the state of Texas and officials tasked with implementing SB 4.
The plaintiffs have argued collectively that immigration enforcement falls solely under the jurisdiction of the federal government, as stipulated by the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause. Additionally, they contend that SB 4 would severely impede the ability of local entities and organizations to provide essential resources. The Justice Department has warned that the law could undermine diplomatic relations with Mexico.
Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Priscilla Richman, delivering the majority opinion, underscored that the state failed to demonstrate that SB 4 did not encroach upon federal jurisdiction, referencing the United States Supreme Court’s precedent in Arizona v. United States, which nullified a law akin to SB 4.
“Texas has not provided sufficient grounds to differentiate SB 4’s entry provisions from those found unconstitutional in Arizona v. United States,” wrote Richman. “Granting Texas unchecked authority to detain noncitizens without federal oversight would enable the state to establish its own immigration policies.”
Richman further asserted that enforcing SB 4 would pose a considerable risk of straining international relations, thereby justifying the maintenance of the injunction.
In support of the plaintiffs, the Mexican government submitted an amicus brief expressing concerns that SB 4 could lead to discrimination against Mexican nationals and disrupt the United States’ unified stance on immigration matters.
U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham, in a dissenting opinion, argued for granting the stay and permitting the state to enforce its law. Oldham contended that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prove SB 4 entirely unconstitutional, particularly concerning the issue of preemption. He noted that the Supreme Court has only preempted state laws pertaining to the registration of undocumented residents.
Last month, SB 4 was initially blocked by a federal judge in Austin shortly before its implementation. The Fifth Circuit temporarily lifted this injunction on appeal, but the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the block. Although the high court briefly allowed SB 4 to take effect last week, the Fifth Circuit subsequently reinstated the injunction.
SB 4 will remain suspended pending further action by the Supreme Court.