Current:Home > InvestFederal appeals court keeps hold on Texas' sweeping immigration in new ruling -StockHorizon
Federal appeals court keeps hold on Texas' sweeping immigration in new ruling
View
Date:2025-04-19 10:36:13
AUSTIN, Texas — In a decision late Tuesday, a federal appeals court extended a temporary block on Texas' new sweeping and controversial immigration law that would authorize state and local police to arrest and deport people suspected of being in the United States illegally.
Maintaining the status quo after a seesaw of judicial opinions in the past week, the New Orleans-based appeals court will keep the law from taking effect ahead of an April 3 hearing on its legality. The U.S. Justice Department has sued Texas over the law, arguing that the state-level immigration policy is unconstitutional as it oversteps into the federal government's authority.
In the Tuesday night decision, the court walked through a number of issues it must contend with in ruling whether the law is constitutional, including the federal government's standing to prevent the Texas law from ever taking effect, conflicting state and federal positions on granting asylum, and concerns that individuals removed under the law would be forced to relocate to Mexico regardless of their country of origin.
The Texas law was allowed to take effect for several hours last week, after the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its hold on the law, allowing an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel of the appeals court to take effect and clearing the way for the law to be enforced. Later the same day, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its prior ruling, again placing the Texas immigration law on hold.
"For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission, and removal of noncitizens — is exclusively a federal power," the appeals court panel wrote in its 2-1 decision to keep the law on hold. "Despite this fundamental axiom, SB 4 creates separate, distinct state criminal offenses and related procedures regarding unauthorized entry of noncitizens into Texas from outside the country and their removal."
'An extreme, unconstitutional law':Joe Biden landed in Texas in middle of a chaotic border mess. Here's what you should know
Order prevents Texas from arresting migrants who illegally enter U.S.
Ruling in favor of keeping the hold in place Tuesday, Chief Judge Priscilla Richman and Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez wrote that there is "no basis in the precedent" to keep the Justice Department from seeking to enjoin the law. The judges added that contradictory and repetitive provisions housed in the law step on existing federal immigration processes while neglecting precedent established by the Supreme Court.
The majority opinion also said that provisions of the law criminalize behaviors that are already prohibited under federal law. Richman cited previous Supreme Court opinions from a 2012 immigration case based on an Arizona law, indicating that Texas will fall short in demonstrating why its law should be allowed to take effect as deliberations continue.
In an amicus brief filed last week, Mexico's federal government railed against Texas' law and said it creates "an atmosphere of uncertainty, fear and vulnerability." The government added that the law also denigrate its bilateral relationship with the United States, subjecting Mexicans to criminalization for "looking Latino."
Amid migrant surge:Immigrants' children in Philly are helping kids at Texas border
The Texas Legislature passed the law in November to codify a series of penalties for anyone suspected of crossing into Texas from Mexico other than through an international port of entry. The law allows the state's police to arrest migrants suspected of entering the United States illegally and to force them to accept a magistrate judge's deportation order or face stiffer criminal penalties for noncompliance.
The law — which Gov. Greg Abbott signed in December — was scheduled to take effect on March 5, but its implementation was delayed after the Justice Department and civil rights groups sued Texas.
In securing an initial hold in February, federal prosecutors have continued to argue that the law is out of the bounds of state authority and seeks to usurp federal power — a position that has now been presented in front of the Supreme Court.
Texas law threatens 'basic civil and human rights'
In a joint statement Wednesday morning, groups involved in the case — including the ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, American Gateways, the Texas Civil Rights Project and El Paso County — celebrated the 5th Circuit's decision to keep the "cruel, harmful, and blatantly illegal" law from taking effect as the courts weigh its constitutionality.
"We appreciate the decision to keep this unconstitutional and extreme anti-immigrant law from going into effect. SB 4 threatens our most basic civil and human rights as citizens and noncitizens alike," said David Donatti, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas. "We will continue our efforts to prevent this hateful law from ever harming our state.”
But in dissenting with the 5th Circuit panel's 2-1 decision, Judge Andrew Oldham said he would have allowed the law to take effect. Oldman argued that not all elements of the Texas immigration policy are unconstitutional and federal attorneys will unlikely to be successful making that argument.
Oldham said the argument for blocking the law "is based on hypotheticals," and that Texas lawmakers and judges should be allowed to "retain at least some of its sovereignty."
veryGood! (35)
Related
- Behind on your annual reading goal? Books under 200 pages to read before 2024 ends
- Anna Delvey Claims Dancing With the Stars Was Exploitative and Predatory
- Ariana Grande defends Ethan Slater, slams 'evil' tabloids for relationship coverage
- NBA players, coaches, GMs react to Dikembe Mutombo's death: 'He made us who we are.'
- Sarah J. Maas books explained: How to read 'ACOTAR,' 'Throne of Glass' in order.
- Lizzo Details Day That Made Her Feel Really Bad Amid Weight Loss Journey
- Biden says Olympians represented ‘the very best of America’
- Did SMU football's band troll Florida State Seminoles with 'sad' War Chant?
- Retirement planning: 3 crucial moves everyone should make before 2025
- Nobody Wants This Creator Erin Foster Reveals Heartwarming True Story That Inspired the Netflix Series
Ranking
- What to know about Tuesday’s US House primaries to replace Matt Gaetz and Mike Waltz
- Kendra Wilkinson Teases Return to Reality TV Nearly 2 Decades After Girls Next Door
- MLB Legend Pete Rose Dead at 83
- The stock market's as strong as it's ever been, but there's a catch
- Small twin
- 'It was really surreal': North Carolina residents watched floods lift cars, buildings
- Desperate Housewives' Marcia Cross Shares Her Health Advice After Surviving Anal Cancer
- Halloween costumes for 'Fallout,' 'The Boys' and more Prime Video shows: See prices, ideas, more
Recommendation
Paige Bueckers vs. Hannah Hidalgo highlights women's basketball games to watch
Conyers fire: Shelter-in-place still in effect after chemical fire at pool cleaning plant
Who was Pete Rose? Hits, records, MLB suspension explained
Las Vegas memorial to mass shooting victims should be complete by 10th anniversary
Average rate on 30
Epic Games sues Google and Samsung over phone settings, accusing them of violating antitrust laws
The Latest: Harris, Trump shift plans after Hurricane Helene’s destruction
North Carolina town bands together after Helene wreaked havoc: 'That's what we do'