Texas Immigration Law Criticized by State Lawyer in Federal Court
During a federal court hearing, a state lawyer representing Texas expressed concerns that the immigration law passed by state legislators last year may have overstepped its boundaries. The attorney's remarks shed light on the ongoing debate surrounding Texas' controversial immigration policies.
An attorney representing Texas’ controversial immigration law admitted to a federal appeals court on Wednesday that state legislators may have pushed the boundaries with the law passed last year. The law, called SB4, criminalizes illegal entry into Texas and empowers state judges to issue deportation orders.
At a recent hearing in front of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson explained that lawmakers intentionally pushed the boundaries set by Supreme Court precedent when drafting the law.
Texas National Guard soldiers lay material out in preparation to build and repair damaged fencing on the banks of the Rio Grande river near Shelby Park on March 21, in Eagle Pass, Texas.
Texas National Guard soldiers are getting ready to build and repair fencing along the Rio Grande river near Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas. They are laying out the materials needed for the task on March 21.
Related article
Texas immigration controversy rekindles fight over Arizona’s ‘show me your papers’ law
Nielson acknowledged, "Now, to be fair, maybe Texas went too far." He made this statement while presenting his case before a circuit panel that had temporarily halted the law from taking effect. The court needed more time to review the statute. Nielson aimed to minimize the impact of the law, emphasizing that it did not overstep federal immigration authority.
Nielson announced on Wednesday that according to the Texas Attorney General's interpretation of state law, migrants with state court deportation orders would be handed over to federal immigration authorities at border ports. The federal officials would then decide if they should be released in the United States while they wait for further proceedings.
Chief Circuit Judge Priscilla Richman, a conservative judge who played a crucial role in the 2-1 panel decision that temporarily halted the law last week, expressed doubts about Nielson's efforts to narrow the scope of the state law.
"What has the statute accomplished?" She asked Nielson.
A lawyer from the Justice Department, who filed a lawsuit against the Texas statute, advised the appeals court to stick with their previous decision to stop the law.
"DOJ attorney Daniel Tenny reassured the appeals court on Wednesday that there is no new reason to change the analysis from the Court's previous stay opinion."
"Judge Andrew Oldham, the sole panel member leaning towards supporting the law, challenged Tenny with questions aimed at weakening the arguments made by the administration and other opponents of the law."
He mentioned that the United States has accomplished something unprecedented in this case - a facial invalidation of a statute that never became law. He described it as a remarkable victory for the country.
Nielson argued in court that SB 4 was Texas' effort to uphold federal immigration laws that he believed the Biden administration was neglecting.
"Presidents change over time, and each administration may interpret and enforce federal law differently," he mentioned. He also pointed out that under a new president, the law may not be needed.
Furthermore, he suggested that if the court deems certain parts of the Texas law as invalid, they should only remove those sections and allow the remaining provisions to stay in effect.
Wednesday’s hearing was the most recent development in the complex legal battle over SB 4. Last month, the law briefly went into effect after the US Supreme Court allowed it to be enforced for a few hours. However, the appeals court then issued a surprising order that same night, blocking the law once again.
The initial block on the law came from a federal judge in late February. This decision was made in response to lawsuits filed by the Biden administration, El Paso County, and two immigrant advocacy organizations.
Richman recently denied Texas’ request to enforce the law while their appeal of the injunction is ongoing. He mentioned that the law probably goes against the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.
Legal experts believe that if the Texas case reaches the high court, it could provide an opportunity for the justices to reconsider the 2012 ruling and possibly challenge the federal government’s traditional control over US immigration issues.
This story has been updated with additional details Wednesday.
CNN’s Avery Lotz contributed to this report.
Editor's P/S:
The recent admission by Texas' attorney that the state legislature may have overstepped boundaries with its controversial immigration law, SB4, highlights the ongoing tension between states' rights and federal authority. While Texas claims the law is necessary to uphold federal immigration laws that the Biden administration is neglecting, critics argue that it infringes on the federal government's traditional control over immigration.
The legal battle over SB4 is a complex one, with the law initially blocked by a federal judge in February and then temporarily halted by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The case may ultimately reach the Supreme Court, providing an opportunity for the justices to reconsider their 2012 ruling and potentially redefine the balance of power between states and the federal government on immigration issues.
