WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to begin enforcing a law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of crossing the border illegally while a legal battle over the measure plays out.
The conservative majority's order rejects an emergency application from the Biden administration, which says the law is a clear violation of federal authority that would upset more than a century of immigration authority.
Texas Gov Greg Abbott praised the order — and the law — which allows any police officer in Texas to arrest migrants for illegal entry and authorizes judges to order them to leave the U.S.
The high court didn't address whether the law is constitutional. The legal case is far from over. The case will now go back to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on Wednesday.
In the meantime, it wasn’t clear how soon Texas might begin arresting migrants under the law.
The majority did not write a detailed opinion in the case, as is typical in emergency appeals. But the decision to let the law go into effect drew dissents from liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
“The Court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos,” Sotomayor wrote in a blistering dissent joined by Jackson.
The law, known as Senate Bill 4, is considered by opponents to be the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since an Arizona law more than a decade ago, portions of which were struck down by the Supreme Court. Critics have also said the Texas law could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called the law “harmful and unconstitutional” and said it would burden law enforcement while creating confusion. She called on congressional Republicans to settle the issue with a federal border security bill.
Brandon, a UNT graduate who was brought to the U.S. from Mexico and is undocumented, said that law makes him feel like he has a target on his back. Brandon asked WFAA not to use his last name out of concern for his status in the U.S.
"It's very upsetting. This law does make things harder than they already were," Brandon said. "It gives police the opportunity to target anyone, including myself. It opens the door not just to get targeted, but to have other groups have this belief that now they have the ability to discriminate against us more."
Brandon, who teaches Jiu-Jitsu classes in Lewisville aside from running a small business said his entire family fears the law could impact them in their daily lives.
"My mom was like, 'Let's try to not go out or leave the house unless we have to.' She's considering moving out of state. Honestly, we just don’t know where its gonna lead, how bad it’s gonna get," Brandon said.
Mexican Foreign Affairs Secretary Alicia Bárcena said via the social platform X Tuesday that the law “surprisingly” took effect Tuesday. She said that as Mexico’s top diplomat, she had been clear: “The protection and support of our countrymen is the priority. I reject this measure that criminalizes and discriminates against people” who are migrating.
The advocacy group FWD.us said the Supreme Court’s decision could encourage other states to pass laws encroaching on federal authority. Andrea Flores, the organization’s vice president for Immigration Policy and Campaigns, said the law will “unjustly target Texas families, including American citizens, longtime undocumented residents awaiting federal relief, and recent migrants seeking legal protections.”
Texas, for its part, has argued it has a right to take action over what authorities have called an ongoing crisis at the southern border. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice said in a statement it is “prepared to handle any influx in population" associated with the state law.
Texas sheriffs’ offices have been preparing for the implementation of Senate Bill 4 since the state’s legislative session last year, said Skylor Hearn, executive director of the Sheriffs’ Association of Texas
The law allows police in counties bordering Mexico to make arrests if they see someone crossing the border illegally, he said. It could also be enforced elsewhere in Texas if someone is arrested on suspicion of another violation and a fingerprint taken during jail booking links them to a suspected re-entry violation. It likely would not come into play during a routine traffic stop, he said.
“I don’t think you will see anything ultimately different,” Hearn said.
Arrests for illegal crossings along the southern border hit record highs in December but fell by half in January, a shift attributed to seasonal declines and heightened enforcement. The federal government has not yet released numbers for February.
Some Texas officials sounded a cautious note.
"We understand this law is a cause for concern for some in our community. The Dallas Police Department understands these concerns and will continue to enforce the existing state law that prohibits racial profiling," Dallas Police Chief Eddie Garcia said in a statement. "The Department cannot prohibit or limit the enforcement of immigration laws; however, residents of Dallas, victims, and witnesses should continue to feel confident in working with the Dallas Police Department. Until we have more clarification on the law, update Dallas Police Department’s procedures and General Orders, and provide additional training to ensure the protection of individuals’ civil rights, we will adhere to the current General Orders. Reducing and preventing violent crime in the City of Dallas remains the top priority of the Dallas Police Department.”
“A lot of the local police chiefs here, we don’t believe it will survive a constitutional challenge. It doesn’t look like it’s going to, because a Texas peace officer is not trained. We have no training whatsoever to determine whether an individual is here in this country, legally,” said Sheriff Eddie Guerra of Hidalgo County. He serves as president of the Southwestern Border Sheriffs’ Coalition representing 31 border counties from Texas to California.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested her vote in favor of Texas stemmed from the technicalities of the appeals process rather than agreement with the state on the substance of the law.
“So far as I know, this Court has never reviewed the decision of a court of appeals to enter — or not enter — an administrative stay. I would not get into the business. When entered, an administrative stay is supposed to be a short-lived prelude to the main event: a ruling on the motion for a stay pending appeal,” she wrote in a concurring opinion joined by fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Arguments in the 5th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals are set for April 3.
The battle over the Texas immigration law is one of multiple legal disputes between Texas officials and the Biden administration over how far the state can go to patrol the Texas-Mexico border and prevent illegal border crossings.
Several Republican governors have backed Gov. Abbott’s efforts, saying the federal government is not doing enough to enforce existing immigration laws.
The Supreme Court in 2012 struck down key parts of an Arizona law that would have allowed police to arrest people for federal immigration violations, often referred to by opponents as the “show me your papers” bill. The divided high court found then that the impasse in Washington over immigration reform did not justify state intrusion.
___
Associated Press writers Mark Sherman and Rebecca Santana in Washington, Valerie Gonzalez in McAllen, Texas, Acacia Coronado in Austin, Texas, and Chris Sherman in Mexico City contributed to this report.