{"id":8515,"date":"2024-03-04T08:00:43","date_gmt":"2024-03-04T13:00:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/latinamericasecurityreport.com\/?p=8515"},"modified":"2024-03-05T08:03:02","modified_gmt":"2024-03-05T13:03:02","slug":"u-s-supreme-court-temporarily-blocks-texas-law-that-allows-police-to-arrest-migrants","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/latinamericasecurityreport.com\/?p=8515","title":{"rendered":"U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Texas Law That Allows Police to Arrest Migrants"},"content":{"rendered":"
Migrants wait to be processed by the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol after they crossed the Rio Grande and entered the U.S. from Mexico, Oct. 19, 2023, in Eagle Pass, Texas. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, Feb. 29, 2024, allowed a Texas law to proceed that lets state police arrest migrants and local judges to order them to leave, paving the way to a U.S. Supreme Court battle. The law, which was initially set to take effect Tuesday, March 5, will be able to take effect Saturday, March 9. (AP Photo\/Eric Gay, File)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Texas\u2019 plans to arrest migrants<\/a><\/span> who enter the U.S. illegally and order them to leave the country is headed to the Supreme Court in a legal showdown over the federal government\u2019s authority over immigration.<\/p>\n

An order issued Monday by Justice Samuel Alito puts the new Texas law on hold for at least next week while the high court considers what opponents have called the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since an Arizona law more than a decade ago.<\/p>\n

The law, known as Senate Bill 4, had been set to take effect Saturday under a decision by the conservative-leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Alito\u2019s order pushed that date back until March 13 and came just hours after the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to intervene.<\/p>\n

\u201cMake no mistake: S.B. 4 bypasses federal immigration authority and threatens the integrity of our nation\u2019s constitution and laws,\u201d a coalition of groups that sued over the law, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.<\/p>\n

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed the law in December<\/a><\/span> as part of a series of escalating measures on the border that have tested the boundaries of how far a state can go to keep migrants from entering the country.<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
\n

The law would allow state officers to arrest people suspected of entering the country illegally. People who are arrested could then agree to a Texas judge\u2019s order to leave the country or face a misdemeanor charge for entering the U.S. illegally. Migrants who don\u2019t leave after being ordered to do so could be arrested again and charged with a more serious felony.<\/p>\n

The Justice Department told the Supreme Court that the law would profoundly alter \u201cthe status quo that has existed between the United States and the States in the context of immigration for almost 150 years.\u201d It went on to argue that the law would have \u201csignificant and immediate adverse effects\u201d on the country\u2019s relationship with Mexico and \u201ccreate chaos\u201d in enforcing federal immigration laws in Texas.<\/p>\n

The federal government cited a 2012 Supreme Court ruling on an Arizona law that would have allowed police to arrest people for federal immigration violations, often referred to by opponents as the \u201cshow me your papers\u201d bill. The divided high court found that the impasse in Washington over immigration reform did not justify state intrusion.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court gave Texas until March 11 to respond.<\/p>\n

In a statement Monday, the Texas Attorney General\u2019s Office said the state\u2019s law mirrored federal law and \u201cwas adopted to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border, which hurts Texans more than anyone else.\u201d<\/p>\n

The federal government\u2019s emergency request to the Supreme Court came after a federal appeals court over the weekend stayed U.S. District Judge David Ezra\u2019s sweeping rejection of the law<\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

In a 114-page ruling Thursday, Ezra rebuked Texas\u2019 immigration enforcement and brushed off claims by Republicans about an ongoing \u201cinvasion\u201d along the southern border due to record-high<\/a><\/span> illegal crossings.<\/p>\n

Ezra added that the law violates the U.S. Constitution\u2019s supremacy clause, conflicts with federal immigration law and could get in the way of U.S. foreign relations and treaty obligations.<\/p>\n

According to Ezra\u2019s ruling, allowing Texas to supersede federal law due to an \u201cinvasion\u201d would \u201camount to nullification of federal law and authority \u2014 a notion that is antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts since the Civil War.\u201d<\/p>\n

Republicans who back the law have said it would not target immigrants already living in the U.S. because the two-year statute of limitations on the illegal entry charge would be enforced only along the state\u2019s border with Mexico.<\/p>\n

Texas has been arresting migrants for years under a different program that is based on criminal trespass arrests.<\/p>\n

Though Ezra said some might sympathize with Texas officials\u2019 concerns about immigration enforcement by the federal government, he said that was not enough to excuse a violation of the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Several Republican governors<\/a><\/span> have backed Abbott\u2019s efforts, saying the federal government is not doing enough to enforce existing immigration laws.<\/p>\n

Some of Abbott\u2019s attempts to impede illegal border crossings have included a floating barrier<\/a><\/span> in the Rio Grande \u2014 which Ezra previously blocked and is part of an ongoing legal battle\u2014 and placing razor wire along the state\u2019s boundary with Mexico. State guard officers have also blocked U.S. Border Patrol agents from accessing a riverfront park<\/a><\/span> in Eagle Pass that was previously used by federal agents to process migrants.<\/p>\n

– Acacia Coronado and Lindsay Whitehurst, AP News<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Texas\u2019 plans to arrest migrants who enter the U.S. illegally and order them to leave the country is headed to the Supreme Court in a legal showdown over the federal government\u2019s authority over immigration. An order issued Monday by Justice Samuel Alito puts the new Texas law on hold for at least next week while the high…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":124,"featured_media":8516,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/dims.apnews.com\/dims4\/default\/6322bcd\/2147483647\/strip\/true\/crop\/5291x3523+193+0\/resize\/820x546!\/format\/webp\/quality\/90\/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2F54%2F97%2F50e5906156f056001bf012715cae%2F30710ba13544459797f4a8d4b41fe93c","fifu_image_alt":"U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Texas Law That Allows Police to Arrest Migrants","footnotes":""},"categories":[189],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8515","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-borders-commerce"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinamericasecurityreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8515","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinamericasecurityreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinamericasecurityreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinamericasecurityreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/124"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinamericasecurityreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8515"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/latinamericasecurityreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8515\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8517,"href":"https:\/\/latinamericasecurityreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8515\/revisions\/8517"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinamericasecurityreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/8516"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinamericasecurityreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8515"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinamericasecurityreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8515"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinamericasecurityreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8515"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}