The controversial immigration bill Senate Bill 4 (SB4), which Texas was pushing for quick implementation of, raised doubts in the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
Despite a 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel to temporarily block SB4, the state’s Solicitor General Aaron Nielson vigorously defended the law, claiming it aligns with federal immigration statutes.
State’s Right to Self-Protection
Nielson argued that Texas had the right to protect itself, especially against individuals associated with criminal cartels who cross the border with malicious intent.
Chief Judge Priscilla Richman challenged the state’s assertion, noting that states lack the authority to remove individuals from the country. Richman highlighted SB4’s unprecedented attempt to grant state judges the power to order deportations to Mexico, raising concerns about overreach.
Nielson countered that SB4 aimed for consistency with federal law and sought to ensure Congress’s immigration mandates were upheld. However, Justice Department lawyer Daniel Tenny disputed Texas’ claims, emphasizing that the federal government actively engages in immigration enforcement.
Read more: Why Does The Child Tax Credit Disappear At 17?
Reaffirming Federal Control over Texas
The dialogue underscored fundamental questions about state versus federal authority in immigration matters. Judge Andrew S. Oldham pressed the Justice Department on the exclusivity of federal jurisdiction over immigration enforcement.
The Biden administration, through White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, condemned SB4 as harmful and unconstitutional, accusing Republican officials of politicizing border issues and hindering genuine solutions.
The Justice Department’s lawsuit against Texas, initiated in January, underscores the constitutional clash between federal and state powers.
Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta reaffirmed the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration and border control under the Supremacy Clause.
As the legal battle unfolds, the fate of SB4 hangs in the balance, with broader implications for immigration policy and the distribution of powers between federal and state governments. The proceedings in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals serve as a critical chapter in this ongoing legal saga.
Read more: California Law Enforcement Implements Lego Head Solution In Suspect Identification
