A federal judge on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction that puts the brakes on a Texas law that lets police arrest migrants who enter the U.S. illegally.

What You Need To Know

  • A federal judge on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit against Senate Bill 4, the controversial and sweeping immigration law that permits police in Texas to arrest migrants who enter the U.S. illegally

  • The law was set to take effect on March 5. It also gives local judges the authority to order migrants to leave the country

  • U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra wrote that “the Supremacy Clause and the Supreme Court precedent affirm that states may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government”

  • Ezra also said that the law would allow Texas to permanently supersede federal directives based on an “invasion”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 4 into law in December. The law also gives local judges the authority to order migrants to leave the country. The law tests the limits of how far a state can go to enforce immigration laws.

Several advocacy groups and El Paso County filed a lawsuit over the sweeping immigration enforcement law, which was set to go into effect on March 5.

“Several factors warrant an injunction. First, the Supremacy Clause and the Supreme Court precedent affirm that states may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government,” U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra wrote. “Second, SB 4 conflicts with the key provisions of federal immigration law, to the detriment of the United States’ foreign relations and treaty obligations. Third, surges in immigration do not constitute an ‘invasion’ within the meaning of the Constitution, nor is Texas engaging in war by enforcing it.”

Ezra said allowing Texas to permanently supersede federal directives based on an “invasion” would effectively nullify federal law and authority.

Opponents have called the measure the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since a 2010 Arizona law — denounced by critics as the “Show Me Your Papers” bill — that was largely struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and Texas’ law is also likely to face swift legal challenges.

“The court’s decision to block this anti-immigrant law from taking effect is an important win for Texas values, human rights and the U.S. Constitution. Our current immigration system needs repair because it forces millions of Americans into the shadows and shuts the door on people in need of safety. S.B. 4 would only make things worse. Cruelty to migrants is not a policy solution,” said David Donatti, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas.

Abbott in a statement on Thursday said the state will fight back. 

"Texas will immediately appeal this decision, and we will not back down in our fight to protect our state—and our nation—from President Biden's border crisis. The President of the United States has a constitutional duty to enforce federal laws protecting States, including laws already on the books that mandate the detention of illegal immigrants," Abbott wrote. "Texas has the right to defend itself because of President Biden's ongoing failure to fulfill his duty to protect our state from the invasion at our southern border. Even from the bench, this District Judge acknowledged that this case will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court." 

Shortly after Abbott released his statement, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the state has already appealed the decision. 

"We have appealed this incorrect decision. Texas has a clear right to defend itself from the drug smugglers, human traffickers, cartels, and legions of illegal aliens crossing into our State as a consequence of the Biden Administration's deliberate policy choices," Paxton wrote. "I will do everything possible to defend Texas's right to defend herself against the catastrophic illegal invasion encouraged by the federal government."

Shortly after Abbott signed the new law, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas said it would challenge the measure in court. More than 20 congressional Democrats also signed a letter urging the U.S. Justice Department to sue to stop the law.

During debate in the Texas House in November, GOP state Rep. David Spiller pushed back against concerns that the law would be used as a dragnet to arrest immigrants statewide. He said enforcement would mostly take place in border counties. But he also rebuffed several efforts by Democrats to narrow the law, including a proposed carve-out for police on college campuses.

Because the illegal entry charge is a misdemeanor, which has a statue of limitation of two years, Spiller has said the law will not be used to target immigrants who have long been settled in the U.S.

“This is not, ‘Round up everyone who is here illegally and ship them back to Mexico,’” he said during debate over the bill.