The law faced criticism for potential racial profiling and state-level immigration enforcement
The Supreme Court has put a temporary halt on Texas’ contentious immigration law, Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), which authorized state officials to arrest and detain individuals suspected of illegal entry into the United States. This administrative stay, issued by Justice Samuel Alito, keeps the law from being enforced while the court evaluates emergency appeals from the Biden administration and other groups challenging the law’s legality.
SB 4, signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott, stirred immediate alarm among immigration advocates, fearing it would lead to increased racial profiling and unauthorized state-led immigration actions in Texas, a state where Latinos make up 40% of the population. Despite the Supreme Court’s intervention, Governor Abbott asserted that Texas would continue to use every available means to address what he describes as a “Biden-made border crisis.”
The Justice Department has voiced concerns that SB 4 would significantly disrupt the longstanding relationship between federal and state jurisdictions over immigration matters, a balance maintained for nearly 150 years. This case echoes historical instances where states, despite their immigration concerns, were reminded by the Supreme Court of the federal government’s primary authority over immigration enforcement, particularly regarding entry and removal regulations.
Initially, a federal judge in Austin blocked the implementation of SB 4, but the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a temporary stay of this decision, setting a deadline for Supreme Court action. Following the appeals, Justice Alito intervened with the administrative stay on March 4.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, supporting the law, positioned Texas as crucial in combating “violent transnational cartels” and the adverse impacts of federal border security policies. The state argues for its sovereign right to self-defense against threats posed by illegal activities facilitated across the border.
This legal battle highlights the ongoing tension between federal and state roles in immigration enforcement and raises critical questions about the limits of state authority in addressing immigration-related concerns
