BREAKING: Supreme Court Hands Victory To Texas, Setback To Biden’s Administration On Immigration 

BREAKING: Supreme Court Hands Victory To Texas, Setback To Biden’s Administration On Immigration 

The Supreme Court decision to allow Texas to enforce the new law concerning the arrest of migrants highlights a complex legal and political issue at the intersection of state and federal authority.

The court’s decision, with a conservative majority and dissenting liberal justices, signals a contentious legal battle that is far from over.

That means the law can go into effect while litigation continues in lower courts. It could be blocked at a later date.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, hailed the court order, calling it “clearly a positive development,” though he acknowledged that the legal battle is not over.

Joe Biden becomes first incumbent president to lose Democrat primary election in Samoa.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement that the law “will not only make communities in Texas less safe, it will also burden law enforcement and sow chaos and confusion at our southern border.”

“The court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also objected to the decision.

The majority did not explain its reasoning, but one of the conservative justices, Amy Coney Barrett, wrote separately to note that an appeals court has yet to weigh in on the issue.

“If a decision does not issue soon, the applicants may return to this court,” she wrote.

Her opinion was joined by fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

The fast-tracking of oral arguments by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the Biden administration’s efforts to block the law underscores the urgency and significance of the legal debate surrounding immigration enforcement policies.

The decision in this case could have far-reaching implications for how immigration laws are enforced at the state level and the extent to which states can assert their authority in this domain.

Arguments are set to take place Wednesday morning, meaning a decision could come quickly.

The law in question, SB4, grants local police the power to arrest migrants who illegally cross the border and imposes criminal penalties.

This move challenges the traditional role of the federal government as the sole authority over immigration matters.

Sheriff Joe Frank Martinez’s concerns in Val Verde County shed light on the practical challenges that local law enforcement faces with the implementation of such laws.

“I think that we all are in uncharted waters,” he said Tuesday.

The need for guidance, additional resources like deputies and jail space, and the capacity to carry out such enforcement initiatives are pressing issues that need to be addressed.

“Right now we’re not equipped to handle that,” he said.

Overall, this development reflects the complexities and tensions inherent in the intersection of state and federal powers, particularly in the context of immigration policy.

The outcomes of this legal battle will have implications for migrant communities, law enforcement agencies, and the broader landscape of immigration policy in the United States.

In a separate opinion, Kagan wrote that the Texas law appears to conflict with federal law, stressing that “the subject of immigration generally, and the entry and removal of noncitizens particularly, are matters long thought the special province of the federal government.”

A federal judge halted the law following the Biden administration’s lawsuit, but the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals indicated that the law could take effect on March 10 if the Supreme Court did not intervene.

The appeals court has not yet made a decision on the federal government’s request to block the law.

Justice Samuel Alito temporarily paused the law on March 4 to allow the Supreme Court to review the government’s request.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the law contradicts longstanding Supreme Court precedents.

“Those decisions recognize that the authority to admit and remove noncitizens is a core responsibility of the national government, and that where Congress has enacted a law addressing those issues, state law is preempted,” she wrote.

She noted that the appeals court did not provide reasons for allowing the law to proceed.

Prelogar also rejected Texas’ claim that the law aligns with the state’s efforts to address a border invasion under the State War Clause.

The provision says states cannot “engage in war, unless actually invaded” or in imminent danger.

“A surge of unauthorized immigration plainly is not an invasion within the meaning of the State War Clause,” Prelogar wrote.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton defended the law, stating that it complements federal regulations and should be enforceable by the state.

The Constitution “recognizes that Texas has the sovereign right to defend itself from violent transnational cartels that flood the state with fentanyl, weapons, and all manner of brutality,” he added.

Texas is “the nation’s first-line defense against transnational violence and has been forced to deal with the deadly consequences of the federal government’s inability or unwillingness to protect the border,” Paxton said.

The city of El Paso and two immigrant rights organizations have contested the law and submitted their emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.

In a similar case in 2012, the Supreme Court invalidated portions of an immigration law in Arizona.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sotomayor are the only two current justices who were part of the majority in that ruling.

However, President Joe Biden expressed dismay over the Supreme Court’s decision granting Texas the authority to arrest undocumented immigrants, making border crossings a state offense.

In a statement, the Biden White House writes, “We fundamentally disagree with the Supreme Court’s order allowing Texas’ harmful and unconstitutional law to go into effect.

“S.B. 4 will not only make communities in Texas less safe, it will also burden law enforcement, and sow chaos and confusion at our southern border. “S.B. 4 is just another example of Republican officials politicizing the border while blocking real solutions.

“We remained focused on delivering the significant policy changes and resources we need to secure the border – that is why we continue to call on Congressional Republicans to pass the bipartisan border security agreement, the toughest and fairest set of border reforms in decades.”

(Information sourced from NBC News)