Supreme Court allows Texas anti-immigrant law
One day after the Texas anti-immigrant law was suspended, the Supreme Court allowed its enforcement, and, as a result, state police will be able to arrest migrants who cross illegally.
On Tuesday, March 19, the Supreme Court rejected a petition from the Biden administration and cleared the way for Texas to enforce a new state law that authorizes its police to arrest migrants who illegally cross the Rio Grande.
The decision came by a 6-3 vote, but several justices emphasized the preliminary nature of the dispute over the Texas Anti-Migrant Act.
Amid the confusion, specialists recalled that there was a Supreme Court decision on Monday, but it was issued only by Justice Samuel Alito.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito issued on Monday afternoon, March 18, just minutes before the deadline expired, an order extending the process of evaluating the controversial rule.
But a day later, the justices convened and issued a ruling after a 6-3 vote.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a strong dissent. “Today, the Court invites more chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement,” they said.
READ MORE: U.S. EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR PROTESTERS IN CUBA.
Disagreeing with Texas Anti-Immigrant Law
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a strong dissent on the Texas Anti-Immigrant Act.
“Today, the Court invites more chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement,” they said.
“Texas can now immediately enforce its own law that imposes criminal liability on thousands of noncitizens and requires their removal to Mexico. This law will disrupt sensitive foreign relations, frustrate the protection of people fleeing persecution, hinder active federal enforcement efforts, and undermine the ability of federal agencies. to detect and monitor imminent security threats and deter noncitizens from reporting abuse or trafficking,” they said.
The question is, whether Texas and other Republican states can strictly enforce laws against illegal entry into the country.
Those state leaders say they are acting because of what they see as lax enforcement by the Biden administration.
The Texas anti-immigrant law will create a precedent, and at the same time, a potential conflict.
The Texas anti-immigrant law will create a precedent, and at the same time, a potential conflict.
The Justice Department said that if Texas were allowed to enforce its own hard-line immigration policy, it would “create chaos” along the border and “disrupt” relations with Mexico.
The department’s lawyers urged the judges to “maintain the status quo” while lower courts considered challenges to the new state law.
They used Biden’s comment
But Texas lawyers pointed to the increase in the number of immigrants crossing the Rio Grande and said smugglers have taken advantage of lax law enforcement.
The Texas lawyers cited President Biden’s comment during his State of the Union address.
“People pay these smugglers $8,000 to cross the border…because the immigrants know that, if they make it through and get let into the country, it will be six to eight years before they get a hearing,” Biden had said.
Biden was calling for a bipartisan border bill that he said would shorten the delay for asylum hearings and thereby reduce incentives for illegal crossings.
For his part, on the Texas anti-immigrant law, Gov. Greg Abbott had defended the new state law and argued that Texas had the power as a “sovereign” state to protect itself against what he called an “invasion.”
He cited the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who laid out a similar view in a 2012 dissent, insisting it was a myth that the Constitution gave the federal government exclusive power over immigration.
On Feb. 29, a federal judge in Austin blocked the law from taking effect on the grounds that it conflicted with federal enforcement. Four days later, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans overturned the judge’s order by a 2-1 vote and without explanation.
Texas’ anti-immigrant law is a direct challenge to previous Supreme Court rulings that upheld the federal government’s exclusive power over immigration enforcement.
The litigation is expected to continue in the court of appeals.
