Is Texas at “war”? And, if so, does Texas get immigration protection into its own hands in” personal- protection”? These are just a few of the perplexing concerns raised by Texas v. United States. Texas may not like the solutions it’s going to receive.
Senate Bill 4, a 2023 legislation that criminalizes some immigration-related acts at the express level, is being sued by Texas by the federal government to stop it from being implemented. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas tentatively enjoined Texas on February 29 and rejected Texas ‘ “invasion protection” after concluding it was preempted by federal immigration laws.
Just last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to grant a stay of that lawsuit pending Texas ‘ appeal. It’s not clear how the Fifth Circuit does decide whether SB 4 is lawful. However, it seems unlikely that Texas will inevitably win, in large part because accepting its position may cause a chaotic jumble of state-level immigration enforcement policies, undermining crucial federal rights to standard administration of immigration law.
Regardless of whether national authorities have or will decide the prosecutor’s immigration status, SB 4 forbids unauthorized access of noncitizens into Texas from outside the US and requires Texas judges to get people convicted under SB 4 to be expelled from the country.
According to Gov. The State War Clause, which enables a state to “engage in War” without Congressional authorization, was the inspiration for these legislative measures, according to Greg Abbott ( R ).
In Arizona v. United States in 2012, the US Supreme Court stated that the “federal power to determine immigration plan is also settled,” and national courts have often reiterated the federal government’s “broad, undisputed authority over the subject of emigration.” The justices that determined that some Arizona statutes had been overturned by federal immigration legislation.
On the theory that noncitizens ‘ immigration into Texas constitutes a transnational cartel invasion, Texas has asserted that the US Constitution allows it to avoid and/or diet national authority over immigration law enforcement, despite the likelihood that escaping Arizona and similar preempt norms would be an uphill battle. Claiming that power under the State War Clause, Gov. According to Abbott, this power” supersedes any provincial statutes to the contradictory.”
Texas ‘ attempt to circumvent Arizona and federal preempt is unlikely to succeed. Invoking the State War Clause depends on equating emigration with invasion—an unstable status as a matter of constitutional wording, structure, and background. The district court so held, and commentators ( including originalist commentators ) have so argued.
Additionally, Texas ‘ position would lead to an inadvertently chaotic mess of state-level immigration enforcement mechanisms. The nearly exclusive federal authority over” the admission and removal of noncitizens” is intended to “preclude ] States from regulating entry and removal in a patchwork across the Nation,” as Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted on March 19 when she expressed a preliminary view of the merits in dissenting from a stay-related order by the US Supreme Court.
Although Article I of the Constitution expressly empowers Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization… throughout the United States,” there are compelling reasons to do the same with immigration enforcement. However, our federalism tolerates diverse state- by- state approaches in many areas. That is what we have done consistently throughout our history, not the least of which is due to the numerous ways that immigration law and US foreign relations and treaty obligations intersect.
For instance, laws like SB 4 that purport to forbid Texas judges from taking into account pending or pending federal requests for asylum or withholding removal as a justification for halting state removal proceedings would thwart US efforts to fulfill its treaty obligations to protect noncitizens from being deported to a nation where they would face persecution.
In contrast, these concerns about SB 4 echo those raised by the Supreme Court last month in Trump v. Anderson, where the justices ruled per curiam that Congress, rather than states, is in charge of enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal officials and candidates.
Trump v. Anderson demonstrates the justices ‘ attention to the real consequences of permitting state-by-state enforcement where that approach threatens to undermine important federal interests and cause ripple effects that extend beyond a state’s own borders.
Even if Texas goes all the way to the Supreme Court, the justices are likely to decide that the nation’s borders must be governed by a uniform policy that is crafted by federal legislators and enforced by federal officers, rather than by a number of states adopting differing and inconsistent strategies under the pretense that they are engaged in a civil war.
The case is United States v. Texas, 5th Cir., No. 24- 50149, denying motion for stay pending appeal 3/26/24.
This article does not necessarily reflect the views of the owners of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, the publisher of Bloomberg Law, or other parties.
Author Information
Mark C. Fleming is co- chair of Wilmer Hale’s appellate and Supreme Court litigation practice.
Charlie C. Bridge is counsel at Wilmer Hale.
Write for Us: Author Guidelines
