A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against a Texas law that would give police broad authority to arrest illegal aliens. The law was scheduled to take effect on March 5.
U.S. District Judge David Ezra wrote that allowing Texas to “permanently supersede federal directives” would “amount to nullification of federal law and authority — a notion that is antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts since the Civil War.”
The law is similar to a 2010 Arizona law known derisively as the “show me your papers” law. Courts struck down certain provisions in that bill, but some of the bill remains intact to this day. Much of the Texas bill was modeled on the Arizona law. Texas lawmakers want another bite of the apple, believing that the border situation has changed and that conditions require more drastic action that the federal government isn’t providing.
But clearly, the Texas law exceeds state authority to enforce immigration and border law, presenting a poor case to violate the supremacy clause.
In his decision, Ezra wrote that the Texas law was preempted by the decision in the Arizona case, adding that the two laws had “striking similarities.” He also struck down state officials’ claims that large numbers of illegal border crossings constitute an “invasion,” saying calling it such is a novel interpretation of the Constitution’s invasion clause and that allowing the law to stand would be permitting the state to engage in war.
Although some may empathize with Texas officials’ claims regarding the federal government’s handling of immigration policy, it is not an excuse to violate the Constitution, the judge wrote.
Gov. Greg Abbott said the influx of illegals was Joe Biden’s fault and said “We will not back down in our fight to protect our state — and our nation.”
“Texas has the right to defend itself because of President Biden’s ongoing failure to fulfill his duty to protect our state from the invasion at our southern border,” he wrote, noting that he believes the case will ultimately end up before the Supreme Court.
It’s a seductive argument with no basis in the Constitution. If Abbott wants the “invasion” repelled, why not ask Biden to send troops? He won’t because he knows he’s playing word games with the truth.
Twisting the definition of words like “invasion” in order to obtain a political goal is what the radical left does. I’m surprised that any conservative would think it an appropriate tactic.
Civil rights groups are being even more silly.
Civil rights groups who sued the state have argued that if allowed to stand, the law — Senate Bill 4 — could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling. They released a joint statement celebrating the decision.
“With today’s decision, the court sent a clear message to Texas: S.B. 4 is unconstitutional and criminalizing Black, Brown, Indigenous, and immigrant communities will not be tolerated,” said Jennifer Babaie, director of advocacy and legal services with Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center.
No, the court did nothing of the sort. SB4 does not “criminalize” people based on their color. And one Texas district court judge is not the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional.
The insufferable ACLU aside, the supremacy clause trumps any law that Texas or any other state enacts regarding the border or immigration. It’s a high bar to clear, and if Ezra’s comments are any indication, it will be difficult to overcome.