After failing to secure a stay of the injunction, the state of Texas argued again before the federal appeals court that its immigration law does not conflict with federal immigration law and is permissible under the U.S. Constitution.
Kirk McDaniel covers all things Texas from his home in Austin. From politics and government to the environment and law, he finds interest in the many factors shaping a modern Lone Star State. Besides writing stories, Kirk also produces the Sidebar podcast from Courthouse News. Originally from Houston, Kirk has traveled to every corner of the state, sometimes wearing a cowboy hat and boots. When he is not working on stories, Kirk spends his time outdoors hiking, paddling and cycling. His love of storytelling comes in handy when he is playing tabletop role-playing games with his wife and friends.
Follow @KirkReportsNews
After failing to secure a stay of the injunction, the state of Texas argued again before the federal appeals court that its immigration law does not conflict with federal immigration law and is permissible under the U.S. Constitution.
Texas again failed to convince the courts to allow its controversial immigration law to take effect while the challenges against it proceed.
The saga over Senate Bill 4 continues as the state of Texas urges the courts to allow the law to take effect and the federal government foretells of chaos were the state to get its way.
After failing to secure a stay of the injunction, the state of Texas argued again before the federal appeals court that its immigration law does not conflict with federal immigration law and is permissible under the U.S. Constitution.
After failing to secure a stay of the injunction, the state of Texas argued again before the federal appeals court that its immigration law does not conflict with federal immigration law and is permissible under the U.S. Constitution.
After failing to secure a stay of the injunction, the state of Texas argued again before the federal appeals court that its immigration law does not conflict with federal immigration law and is permissible under the U.S. Constitution.
After failing to secure a stay of the injunction, the state of Texas argued again before the federal appeals court that its immigration law does not conflict with federal immigration law and is permissible under the U.S. Constitution.
After failing to secure a stay of the injunction, the state of Texas argued again before the federal appeals court that its immigration law does not conflict with federal immigration law and is permissible under the U.S. Constitution.