OAN’s Brooke Mallory
1:24 PM – Tuesday, March 19, 2024
A new law that gives local police the power to arrest illegal immigrants will temporarily go into effect in Texas, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
advertisement
The ruling is a major blow to the Biden administration, which has opposed the measure.
The Biden administration filed an emergency request with the conservative-dominated court, arguing that states should not have the right to make immigration laws because only the federal government has jurisdiction over the issue. . Three liberal justices dissented from the ruling.
This means the bill could go into effect even while litigation in lower courts is ongoing. However, it may be blocked in the future.
“The Court has greenlit a disruptive law that upends the long-standing balance of federal and state power,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also dissented from the decision.
Although the majority offered no reasoning, Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a separate letter noting that the Court of Appeals has not yet considered the issue.
“If a decision is not issued soon, the applicant may return to this court,” Barrett wrote. Fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with her opinion. Conservatives hold a 6-3 majority on the court.
The law, known as SB4, imposes criminal penalties and allows authorities to arrest immigrants who enter the country illegally. It would also give state judges the power to order deportations to Mexico and other countries.
But Kagan argued that the Texas law conflicts with federal law, saying that “immigration in general, and the entry and expulsion of noncitizens in particular, has long been considered a special state jurisdiction of the federal government.”
The Biden administration previously sued and a federal judge blocked the law. But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said in a brief order that the law could go into effect on March 10.th If the Supreme Court decides not to intervene.
Justice Samuel Alito temporarily halted enforcement of the law on March 4.th This is to give the Supreme Court time to consider the federal government’s claims.
Attorney General Elizabeth Preloger sought to rebut Texas’ argument that the Constitution’s warring states clause allows the state to uphold the law because it is essentially fighting an invasion on its borders. According to this article, states “may not engage in war unless they are actually invaded or in imminent danger.”
“The surge in unauthorized immigration is clearly not an invasion within the meaning of the national war clause,” Preloger wrote.
Nevertheless, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton fought back and defended the bill in court papers, arguing that the state should have the authority to enforce it as a supplement to federal law.
Paxton argued that the Constitution “recognizes that Texas has the sovereign right to protect itself from violent transnational cartels flooding it with fentanyl, weapons, and all manner of other brutality.” did.
Lone Star States “are the nation’s first line of defense against cross-border violence, and are forced to deal with the deadly consequences of the federal government’s inability or unwillingness to protect its borders.” he added.
Stay informed. Receive breaking news directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
Please share this post!
