Texas immigration law on hold

Updated at 12:30 p.m. March 27

_{Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announces his endorsement of former President Donald J. Trump for the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election during a Nov. 20 news conference at the South Texas International Airport in Edinburg. FILE PHOTO THE RIDER}

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals late Tuesday blocked SB 4, which aims to establish state crimes and penalties for migrants who illegally enter the state.

“Today’s decision means that we’ll likely never know how Texas’s state courts and its state law-enforcement officers would have implemented S.B. 4,” Priscilla Richman, chief judge, wrote in the 121-page order. “The law has not gone into effect because a federal district judge entered a global injunction against it and against all of its hypothetical applications.”

In a 2-1 decision, the panel denied Texas’ request to stay that injunction.

Richman wrote that in about a week, the panel will consider the preliminary injunction.

“Then the district court will presumably have a trial before entering a permanent injunction,” the order states. “But it’s unclear what there is to try—both because of today’s preemption holding and because then as now there will be zero applications of the state law to anyone.”

Richman wrote that if the case comes back to the 5th circuit for another appeal, it will be controlled by § 1292(a)(1) decision under the rule of orderliness. 

§ 1292(a)(1) states that “interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States … or of the judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.”

Richman ended the order by stating she “respectfully” dissents.

“Texas can do nothing because Congress apparently did everything, yet federal non-enforcement means Congress’s everything is nothing,” she wrote. “And second, while the dispute before us is entirely hypothetical, the consequences of today’s decision will be very real. I respectfully dissent.”

On March 19, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the green light on the bill, allowing SB 4 to take effect immediately in the state for several hours. But later that day, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the bill and scheduled a last-minute hearing for Wednesday morning.

During the hearing, the panel of judges did not issue a decision and the state law remains on hold.

“Texas has a right to defend itself,” said Aaron Lloyd Nielson, Texas solicitor general. 

Chief Judge Priscilla Richman questioned Nielson.

 “This is the first time, it seems to me, that a state has claimed that they have the right to remove illegal aliens,” Richman said. “This is not something, a power, that historically has been exercised by states, has it?”

She also asked if the bill would apply to someone who entered Arizona illegally and lives there for five years, then moves to Texas.

Nielson replied he was not sure. He said the Texas law is “uncharted because we don’t have any cases on it.”

On Feb. 29, Senior U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra temporarily blocked the Texas law. The bill was originally set to go into effect March 5.

“If allowed to proceed, SB 4 could open the door to each state passing its own version of immigration laws,” Ezra wrote in his 114-page decision. “The effect would moot the uniform regulation of immigration throughout the country and force the federal government to navigate a patchwork of inconsistent regulations. SB 4 threatens the fundamental notion that the United States must regulate immigration with one voice.”

Texas immediately appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after Ezra’s ruling.

SB 4 prevents police from arresting migrants in public or private schools, churches and health-care facilities. However, it does not restrict arrests on college or university campuses.

The Rider requested an interview Thursday with Van Slusser, UTRGV assistant chief of police, to discuss what University Police would do if the bill goes into effect.

Slusser did not grant an interview but stated via email that because SB 4 is on hold, “there will be no action taken by UTRGV PD or any other state law enforcement agencies at this time.”

As previously reported by The Rider on Jan. 16, Patrick Gonzales, UTRGV vice president for Marketing and Communications, said because UTRGV is a state public institution, the university must adhere to all Texas laws.

“How specifically it will impact UTRGV operations still remains to be seen,” Gonzales said. “We are monitoring the situation and discussing it. But, you know, we are still waiting to see what the final version is going to look like. … We are monitoring it and working with [the University of Texas] System.”

Alvaro Corral, an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science, said because the Brownsville campus is close to the border, SB 4 can raise student concerns.

“Especially thinking about the Brownsville campus, which literally sits very, very close to the border, to the international crossing,” Corral said. “Any UTRGV Brownsville student would tell you that there is a regular law enforcement presence, including the federal officials, especially with Operation Lone Star.”

He said if SB 4 goes into effect, people could be charged with a class B misdemeanor, which carries a punishment of up to six months in jail if an officer believes a person illegally crossed the Texas-Mexico border.

“If someone were to … cross from Mexico without authorization again, that misdemeanor would now be a second-degree felony of [up] to 20 years in prison,” Corral said.

He said a judge could drop the charges if the person agrees to return to Mexico.

“The worry is that, well, who are the types of individuals that may enter the state without authorization?” Corral said. “… They will simply profile Latino-Hispanic-looking individuals. … Of course, the state of Texas is arguing that racial profiling would not occur. But again, there’s sort of continuing concerns about what … other factors law enforcement officials are relying on in this decision to stop and question someone other than race and ethnicity.”

Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a news release March 19 on behalf of the government of Mexico, stating its dissatisfaction with SB 4.

“Mexico categorically rejects any measure that allows state or local authorities to carry out immigration control tasks, detain and return nationals or foreigners to Mexican territory,” the news release states.

The release also states SB 4 harms the human rights of more than “10 million people of Mexican origin residing in Texas,” creating hostile environments with hate, discrimination and racial profiling.

“Mexico reiterates its legitimate right to protect the rights of its nationals in the United States and to establish its own immigration policies into its territory,” the news release states. “… In that sense, Mexico will not accept, under any circumstances, repatriations by the state of Texas.”

The government of Mexico will participate as a friend of the court before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to provide information on the impact SB 4 will have on the Mexican-American community and its effect on relations between Mexico and the United States.

On Dec. 18, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed two immigration bills, SB 3 by state Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) and SB 4 by state Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), which led to a complaint from the Justice Department.

SB 3 will allocate more than $1.5 billion for border security measures, while SB 4 makes it a state crime to cross into Texas from Mexico illegally, according to a Dec. 18 news release from the governor’s office. 

On Jan. 3, the U.S. filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas, Abbott, the Texas Department of Public Safety and its director, Steven C. McCraw, complaining that SB 4 “creates 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.”

Tania Chavez Camacho, president and executive director of La Unión del Pueblo Entero, said the organization will continue to advocate for undocumented and documented people. 

“We are still pending to hear the resolution of the three-judge panel that heard the case yesterday,” Camacho said. “… So at the moment, the law itself, it’s stopped, it’s blocked, it is not in place. But nonetheless, we’re asking the community to be ready, to be prepared. … I think it’s an opportunity for community members to arm themselves with knowledge about the constitutional rights.”

She said LUPE filed a lawsuit against Texas.

“So LUPE, on March the 12th, filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas, specifically on how SB 4 affects LUPE members,” Camacho said. “So, it’s important to recognize that this law is affecting … a large community of the Rio Grande Valley.”

On Saturday, LUPE hosted its 21st annual Cesar Chavez March outside its headquarters, located at 1601 U.S. Bus. Hwy. 83 in San Juan.

“We are asking community members to come … together as a community, to stand together and to defend the rights of all citizens of this nation, documented and undocumented,” Camacho said during an interview Thursday.