Search Articles
AUSTIN, Texas (CN) — On Thursday, a federal judge blocked the state of Texas from enforcing certain provisions of its controversial immigration law, just one day before they’re set to go into effect.
In his 78-page order granting a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Court Judge David Alan Ezra found two anonymous Honduran immigrants leading a class action had met their burden to show they face a substantial threat of enforcement under Senate Bill 4.
“Enforcement of this law would place plaintiffs at risk of arrest, prosecution, detention, and ultimately, removal,” Ezra wrote. “The court finds this threatened enforcement and the severity of the harm imposed to plaintiffs in the event the likely preempted law is enforced against them constitutes irreparable harm.”
The remaining provisions of SB 4 untouched by Ezra’s injunction will be allowed to take effect Friday, including the ability for police to arrest anyone suspected of unlawful entry into the country. The injunction applies only to those suspected of illegal reentry.
Both plaintiffs live in Austin and are the primary providers in their families. One is a green card holder, while the other has received provisional approval for a U-visa, which protects the victims of crimes who have been helpful to law enforcement from deportation.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project brought the class action on their behalf. The defendant in the case is Freeman Martin, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, the agency responsible for the enforcement of the law.
In his order, Ezra wrote he believed the provisions of SB 4 challenged by the plaintiffs likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, because the law conflicts and encroaches on the federal government’s interest in regulating immigration.
Passed in 2023, SB 4 made it a state crime to break immigration laws. Once prosecuted, judges are required to order migrants to be removed to Mexico.
For Ezra, the law is strikingly similar to Senate Bill 1070, the Arizona law at issue in the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States.
The judge wrote that while SB 4, like SB 1070, seeks to mirror federal immigration law, the high court has forbidden states from taking such action. He also found SB 4 runs counter to federal law.
“At the broadest level, SB 4 conflicts with federal immigration law because it provides state officials the power to enforce federal law without federal supervision,” Ezra wrote. “Congress has enacted a statutory scheme to ensure that federal immigration law is conducted under the watch of federal officials in a uniform way across all fifty states, and SB 4 interferes with that goal.”
This new order marks the second time Ezra has ruled against SB 4. Shortly after the law was passed, immigration advocacy organizations, El Paso County and the Biden administration challenged it on the same constitutional grounds raised by the migrants in the present case.
Ezra granted the coalition’s request to block the law from taking effect and a Fifth Circuit panel affirmed. However, in April, the full appeals court reviewed the case and found the plaintiffs lacked standing, giving SB 4 the green light to take effect on May 15.
The plaintiff’s legal counsel, in a joint statement, said Ezra’s order reaffirms that immigration enforcement is solely a federal issue.
“Senate Bill 4 would instill fear in our communities, cause widespread racial profiling, and subject lawfully present immigrants to arrest, detention, and deportation,” they said. “Texas cannot override the U.S. Constitution and should stop wasting time attempting to do so.”
The Texas Attorney General’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment response.
Other GOP-controlled states have followed Texas’ lead and enacted laws similar to SB 4. And like SB 4, they have faced an uphill battle in the courts.
Last October, the Eighth Circuit blocked an Iowa law criminalizing the reentry of previously deported immigrants. Over the summer, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an appeals court’s decision to block parts of a Florida law targeting immigrants without permanent legal status.
Follow @KirkMcDanie1Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
