(The Center Square) 性视界传媒 The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has again ruled against Texas性视界传媒 border security bill, SB 4, after a series of conflicting rulings were issued last year at the district and appellate level and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Right before the July 4 holiday, a panel of three Fifth Circuit judges ruled against Texas, upholding a district court性视界传媒檚 injunction.
Chief Judge Priscilla Richman wrote a 94-page ruling for the majority, concluding SB 4 性视界传媒渞uns headlong into federal law.性视界传媒 Judge Andrew Oldham wrote a 90-page dissent arguing the majority usurped Texas性视界传媒 sovereignty, underuled the Supreme Court性视界传媒檚 standing doctrine and flouted Supreme Court precedent.
In 2023, during a fourth special session, the Texas legislature passed SB 4 making illegal entry into Texas a crime, giving law enforcement officials the authority to return illegal foreign nationals to a port of entry and/or arrest them for unlawful entry, among other provisions. Gov. Greg Abbott signed it into law on Dec. 18, 2023.
He argued former President Joe Biden's "deliberate inaction 性视界传媒 left Texas to fend for itself," pointing to Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which empowers states "to take action to defend themselves and that is exactly what Texas is doing." The clause was cited by 55 Texas counties that declared an invasion, The Center Square .
The Biden administration , as did El Paso County, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and American Gateways, asking the court to block SB 4 from going into effect. The administration argued the federal government has the 性视界传媒渆xclusive authority under federal law to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens,性视界传媒 and SB 4 性视界传媒渃reates purported state immigration crimes for unlawful entry and unlawful reentry, permits state judges and magistrates to order the removal of noncitizens from the country, and mandates that state officials carry out those removal orders.性视界传媒
The district court agreed, issued an injunction and Texas appealed.
What followed was described as a 性视界传媒渓egal whiplash.性视界传媒 A panel of three Fifth Circuit judges consolidated the cases and allowed SB 4 to go into effect pending appeal. On appeal, the Supreme Court stayed the Fifth Circuit ruling and less than 24 hours later reversed its ruling, allowing SB 4 to go into effect last March, The Center Square .
Within hours of the Supreme Court性视界传媒檚 ruling, the Fifth Circuit reversed its previous ruling and banned SB 4 from going into effect, The Center Square .
After President Donald Trump came into office, the DOJ dropped its lawsuit. The remaining lawsuits are being litigated.
Judge Richman concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their preemption claims.
SB 4 conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act, 性视界传媒渃learly conflicts性视界传媒 with federal code, and interferes with US diplomatic relations, the majority held. 性视界传媒淎uthorizing Texas state judges and magistrate judges to remove aliens from the United States without notice to or consent from the federal government,性视界传媒 the court held, 性视界传媒渞uns headlong into federal law.性视界传媒
They also said, 性视界传媒渋t is problematic that state courts will determine if an alien has entered illegally and order their removal,性视界传媒 noting that a majority of the full court already concluded 性视界传媒渢hat state courts may not assess the legality of an alien性视界传媒檚 presence.性视界传媒
Judge Oldham disagreed, saying the ruling usurped Texas性视界传媒 性视界传媒渟overeign right to police its border and to battle illegal immigration性视界传媒 and 性视界传媒渦nderrules the Supreme Court性视界传媒檚 standing doctrine. It demonstrates our rule of orderliness. It turns upside down the standards for preliminary injunctions and facial preenforcement review. It finds that Congress somehow preempted the field of immigration 性视界传媒 by affirmatively authorizing States to participate in it 性视界传媒 and subverts the other preliminary-injunction factors 性视界传媒π允咏绱綕
He also said the court made multiple errors in its ruling, including holding the case for 15 months. As a result, Texas suffered 性视界传媒渋rreparable injury with each day a federal court stands between the State and enforcement of its law性视界传媒 with a trial date looming, he said.
Oldham highlighted examples of 性视界传媒淭exas性视界传媒檚 place at the epicenter of性视界传媒 the border crisis, argued 性视界传媒淓l Paso County性视界传媒檚 theory of standing is equally unavailing性视界传媒 and plaintiffs 性视界传媒渓ack a cause of action.性视界传媒 He also rejected the majority性视界传媒檚 main claim, saying, 性视界传媒淭exas性视界传媒檚 laws are neither field nor conflict preempted性视界传媒 and said they flouted Supreme Court precedent.
The majority ruling was 性视界传媒渁 sad day for Texas and for our court,性视界传媒 for 性视界传媒渢he millions of Americans who are concerned about illegal immigration and who voiced those concerns at ballot boxes across Texas and the Nation 性视界传媒 only to have their voices muted by federal judges,性视界传媒 and 性视界传媒渇or the rule of law,性视界传媒 he said.
Texas is appealing to the full court.
