A federal judge ordered Texas not to enforce parts of a law that would allow state authorities to arrest and deport illegal immigrants independent of the federal government, saying only Congress has the power to control the borders.
U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra, a Reagan appointee, rejected Texas’s argument that illegal immigration constitutes an “invasion,” which would trigger state powers to repel the invaders.
He said the Constitution grants Congress the power to create a national immigration policy, and Texas’s SB 4 interferes with that, by purporting to give the state power to make arrests — and, even more extreme, to carry out deportations — even when the feds don’t want to.
Judge Ezra said deportation goes to the heart of core federal powers, including foreign policy decisions in which he said states cannot meddle.
“If allowed to proceed, SB 4 could open the door to each state passing its own version of immigration laws,” the judge wrote. “The effect would moot the uniform regulation of immigration throughout the country and force the federal government to navigate a patchwork of inconsistent regulations. SB 4 threatens the fundamental notion that the United States must regulate immigration with one voice.”
Texas adopted its get-tough approach during the Biden administration when the border descended into chaos and the state was overwhelmed with new arrivals who’d either escaped the Border Patrol or, in many cases, were caught but then released with Homeland Security’s tacit approval.
Under President Trump, the border has been pacified to the point that catch-and-release has ended and the number of people attempting to enter is down more than 95% compared to the worst of the Biden era.
The Biden administration had sued to block the Texas law, and was joined by immigrant rights groups.
After the change in administrations, the Trump Justice Department filed a brief largely backing Texas in the case.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Texas, shot down another challenge to SB 4 late last month. It said the challengers in that case lacked legal standing to sue.
It did not judge the merits of the law, so that decision doesn’t affect Judge Ezra’s new ruling.
