A federal appeals court ruled against Texas late Tuesday in a sharp clash with the federal government, saying a law allowing the state to arrest and deport immigrants remains in effect while the court wrestles with the question of legality. It was ruled that it could not be done.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, known for its conservative decisions, upheld the 2-1 ruling with lawyers for the Biden administration arguing that the law violates the U.S. Constitution. . Decades of legal precedent.
The committee's 50-page majority opinion left in place an injunction issued last month by a lower court in Austin that determined the federal government was likely to succeed in its challenge to the law. The opinion was written by 5th Circuit Chief Justice Priscilla Richman, a nominee of President George W. Bush, and was joined by Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, who was nominated to the court by President Biden last year.
Judge Richman found that the Texas law is inconsistent with federal law and Supreme Court precedent, particularly the 2012 immigration case Arizona v. United States.
“For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration—the admission, entry, and removal of noncitizens—is exclusively a federal power,” she wrote. “Texas has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits,” she said after discussing how the various arguments the state has made are insufficient.
It was a setback for Gov. Greg Abbott, but not unexpected. The governor said he expected a fight over the law's constitutionality would eventually reach the Supreme Court. Abbott said that to deal with the record numbers of migrants crossing into Texas from Mexico, states need laws that would allow them to arrest and deport migrants on their own.
Abbott also said in a speech this month that the law was created to challenge a 2012 high court precedent that ruled 5-3. Mr. Abbott said he was consistent with a dissenting opinion in the Arizona case written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
State attorneys could ask the Supreme Court for emergency action. Or they could put a decision on hold and await arguments scheduled for April 3 on the content of the law, known as Senate Bill 4 or SB 4, and whether the injunction was properly ordered. The arguments will be heard by the same three-judge panel.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Andrew S. Oldham said Tuesday's ruling suggests the panel will similarly rule in favor of the federal government after arguments next month.
“Today's decision means we will likely never know how Texas courts and state law enforcement officials implemented SB 4,” said Abbott's former general counsel and court appointee. Mr Justice Oldham wrote. President Donald J. Trump. He said he intended to allow the law to take effect as the appeals process progresses and instead “wait for an actual conflict between state and federal law to arise” before the court.
The decision is the latest development in the back-and-forth legal drama surrounding the law, and Texas' full-fledged effort to directly challenge the federal government and create a state-level immigration enforcement system.
The law briefly went into effect this month amid a series of procedural rulings that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Hours later, its implementation was again blocked by order by the Fifth Circuit.
The legal battle has created chaos for Texas police departments and sheriff's offices, spread uncertainty along the border, and prompted Mexico's president and foreign ministry to issue state court orders for migrants crossing from Mexico. He vociferously opposed the law's central provision, which allows for To return to one's country, regardless of one's country of origin.
It was this provision that troubled Judge Richman the most. During an hour of oral arguments on whether to suspend the injunction, he focused on SB4's expungement provisions, which he suggested contradicted previous Supreme Court precedent.
“This appears to be the first time that a state has asserted that it has the right to remove illegal aliens,” she said at the hearing.
In his opinion Tuesday, Judge Richman wrote that one of Texas' most aggressive arguments, that the arrival of large numbers of migrants at the southern border constitutes an “invasion” that invokes the state's war powers, requires the survival of Texas law. rejected the argument that he should be allowed to do so. US Constitution.
“The text, structure, and history of the Constitution provide strong evidence that even after the state war clause has been invoked, federal laws dealing with issues such as the admission and removal of noncitizens remain paramount.” She wrote, adding that Texas “does not specify any authority to uphold its constitution.” She is the opposite of the suggestion.
Even if the state's arrest law is consistent with current federal law and makes it a crime to enter the United States without authorization, Judge Richman wrote, “What happens immediately after an arrest is grossly inconsistent with federal law.” Ta.
He wrote that the deportation provision would “severely impair the exercise of discretion” by federal immigration authorities, preventing apprehended immigrants from seeking asylum before being ordered to leave the country by a state court, and adding, “causes,'' he added. There is a risk that the United States will fail to comply with its treaty obligations. ”
Judge Richman alluded to the heated political debate over immigration enforcement, noting that both Republican and Democratic administrations have cited a “lack of political will” as well as a lack of adequate funding from Congress as limitations.
Texas maintains that its law fills a gap left by the federal government, “but there is a possibility that Texas could assume sovereign status under the Constitution and the law.'' is low,” she wrote.