An Appeals Court again blocks the Texas anti-immigrant law |

The toughest anti-immigrant law in the United States was in effect for about eight hours and forty minutes. The Fifth Circuit of Appeals blocked the controversial Texas rule again on Tuesday night. The panel’s decision came just hours after the conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the law, known as SB4, to go into effect. The rule, signed in December of last year by Governor Greg Abbott, establishes new punishments, of up to 20 years in prison, for those who enter irregularly. It also allows local law enforcement agencies to request papers from anyone suspected of entering the country illegally. The most controversial aspect of the norm, which has provoked “the categorical rejection” of the Mexican Government, endorses a state system of deportation of people, an exclusive power of the federal Government.

“This is clearly a positive development,” said Governor Abbott, who carries out a crusade against irregular immigration. The president celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision, but warned that the pending trial that exists in the Fifth Federal Circuit of Appeals, located in New Orleans, must still be resolved. This must listen to the arguments of both parties and then issue a ruling. These will begin to take place on Wednesday morning via Zoom. The Biden Administration sued the Government of Texas, considering that SB4 “alters the the state in which that has existed between the United States and the States in the context of immigration for almost 150 years.” Either side can appeal to the Supreme Court following the appeals court’s ruling.

When in effect, the rule will allow security forces to request papers from anyone in practically any place with the exception of schools, churches, hospitals and health centers. The review of immigration documents will not be exclusive to the border counties, but can be carried out in cities far away from the border with Mexico.

The Mexican Government has protested after the law’s brief entry into force. “Mexico categorically rejects any measure that allows state or local authorities to carry out immigration control tasks, detain and return nationals or foreigners to Mexican territory,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. Foreign Affairs assures that the new legislation creates a “hostile environment” in Texas, which has 10 million people of Mexican origin. The Mexican Executive affirms that he will play the role of Friend of the Court before the panel of Louisiana judges to report on the impact that the law will have on the Mexican-American community.

The conservative majority of the Supreme Court, created during the Donald Trump Administration, allowed the measure to come into force in a 6-3 vote. The judges of the progressive minority have written a dissenting opinion rejecting the majority’s decision. Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the only Latina on the High Court, has considered that the Texas legislation “puts an end to the balance of power that has existed for more than a century between the federation and the States.” Sotomayor also believes that her colleagues’ decision will cause more disorder at the border, an area that documented record numbers of immigrant apprehensions during 2023.

Conservative judges Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh assure in another opinion that their vote with the majority does not mean that they agree with the underlying substance of SB4. The lawyers affirm that this is a matter of technical procedures and that it is “premature” to enter into the matter before the Fifth Circuit issues its ruling on the rule.

The Government of Texas argued that the rule is a product of the inaction of the Joe Biden Government on the border. The legislation passed without difficulty through the local Congress, in the hands of the Republican party. The authorities assure that this will be an instrument that will help them control an “invasion” on the border. Abbott and his Administration have managed to gather several supports from Republican leaders, who have been very critical of the Democratic president’s immigration management. The Supreme Court’s decision has been celebrated by the Texas prosecutor, Ken Paxto, who declared it “an enormous triumph” in the defense of the sovereignty of the State.

The long judicial path of this rule began at the end of February, when a federal district judge blocked it by calling it unconstitutional. “Allowing Texas to supersede federal legislation based on invasion would mean nullifying federal law and authority, a notion that is antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts since the Civil War,” David Ezra wrote in his argument, 114 pages.

The magistrate, like other critics of SB4, consider that the law has several similarities with SB1070, a rule approved in 2010 by the Government of Arizona. This allowed local security forces to ask for papers from almost anyone suspected of having entered the country illegally. SB1070 was in court for two years. In June 2012, the Supreme Court invalidated several aspects and left others standing. Among what was ruled was that only the federal government has the power to dictate laws against illegal immigration.

Human rights organizations have harshly criticized SB4, which should have gone into effect on March 5. “Implementing this law will lead to racial profiling, separating families and harming black and Latino communities throughout the State,” says the Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy center. Jennifer Babaie, the group’s director, has promised to continue the legal battle so that everyone, regardless of their immigration status, “has the freedom to move around the country to get ahead.”

Follow all the international information on Facebook y Xor our weekly newsletter.