Senior Reporter 
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday initially denied the Biden administration’s request to block S.B. 4, a new Texas law authorizing police to arrest and detain people for illegally crossing the border from Mexico
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday initially denied the Biden administration’s request to block S.B. 4, a new Texas law authorizing police to arrest and detain people for illegally crossing the border from Mexico. The law was set to go into effect on March 5, but a district court judge had previously granted a preliminary injunction, preventing its implementation while legal challenges proceeded.
The Supreme Court’s decision, issued over the dissent of three liberal justices, was seen as a victory for Texas officials, with Attorney General Ken Paxton celebrating it as a “huge win” for the state’s sovereignty. However, the ruling did not amount to a definitive decision on the law’s constitutionality.
Appeals Court Reinstates Injunction Against the Law
Just hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling, a panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to restore the preliminary injunction against S.B. 4. Chief Judge Priscilla Richman and Judge Irma Ramirez joined in the order reinstating the injunction, while Judge Andrew Oldham dissented, arguing that the status quo called for allowing the law to go into effect.
The appeals court’s unexpected late-night order capped a day where Texas officials had initially celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling before the lower court stepped in again. The issue now appears likely to return to the Supreme Court soon.
Legal Battle Over Federal-State Balance of Power
The legal showdown over S.B. 4 reflects the ongoing clash between the Biden administration and Texas on border policy and immigration matters. The federal government and immigration advocacy organizations argue that the state law conflicts with federal immigration policy and violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which establishes that federal laws preempt conflicting state laws.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the appeals court’s decision to allow the law to take effect, stating that it would “upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos” at the border.
Future Legal Proceedings and Potential Impacts
While neither court’s action amounted to a definitive ruling on the law’s constitutionality, the issue is expected to continue making its way through the legal system. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, indicated they would consider the matter anew after the 5th Circuit issues a more formal decision on whether the law can stay in effect.
If S.B. 4 is ultimately upheld, it could have significant implications for immigration enforcement and the relationship between federal and state authorities in addressing border issues. Mexico’s government has already stated it would not “under any circumstances” accept the return of any migrants from Texas under the law.
As the legal battle continues, the fate of S.B. 4 remains uncertain, with the potential for further chaos and disruption at the border, as warned by Justice Sotomayor.
