- Written by Bernd Debsmann Jr.
- BBC News, Washington
The Supreme Court has allowed Texas to implement one of the toughest immigration laws enacted by a U.S. state in recent memory.
The measure would allow police to arrest and prosecute suspects who cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.
The Biden administration is challenging the law as unconstitutional.
Although illegally crossing the U.S. border is already a federal crime, violations are typically handled as civil cases by the immigration court system.
One reason Texas law SB4 is so controversial is because courts previously ruled that only the federal government, not individual U.S. states, can enforce Texas' immigration laws. It's about being there.
SB4 would allow local and state police officers to stop and arrest anyone suspected of crossing the border illegally, except at schools, medical facilities, and places of worship.
Punishments range from misdemeanors to felonies and can include imprisonment or fines of up to $2,000 (£1,570).
Penalties for someone who illegally re-enters Texas after being deported can be up to 20 years in prison, depending on the person's immigration and criminal history.
The Supreme Court said Tuesday that the measure could take effect while lower federal appeals courts consider its legality. The day before, the nation's highest court ordered a suspension of SB4.
President Joe Biden's White House harshly criticized the decision.
“SB 4 not only makes Texas communities less safe, it also burdens law enforcement and creates confusion and confusion at our southern border,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement. Deaf,” he said.
But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed the Supreme Court's decision as a “huge victory” for the Biden administration and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has also been challenging the law in court.
“As always, I'm honored to defend Texas and its sovereignty and lead us to victory in court,” he said in a post on X (formerly Twitter).
The ACLU vowed, “We will not repeal this extreme anti-immigrant law until it is repealed forever.”
Mexico's top diplomat, Roberto Velasco Alvarez, posted on X that Mexico will not accept migrants sent back across the border from Texas.
“The dialogue on migration issues will continue between the federal governments of Mexico and the United States,” he said in Spanish.
The court's three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, disagreed with the majority's decision.
“The court has given the green light to potentially disrupt the long-standing balance of federal and state power,” Justice Sotomayor wrote in his dissenting opinion.
He also said the law would “disrupt delicate foreign relations, impede protection for individuals fleeing persecution, impede aggressive federal enforcement efforts,” and potentially prevent immigrants from reporting abuse and human trafficking. I wrote that it has sex.
The Justice Department argues that SB4 violates the federal government's authority to protect the U.S. border and warns that it could damage relations with Mexico, which has criticized the law as “anti-immigrant.” There is.
Historically, the federal government has enacted immigration laws and regulations, even though the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give it that authority.
The federal government also negotiates treaties and agreements with other countries.
SB4 was signed in December and was originally scheduled to take effect on March 5th.
The case will now be brought back before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, based in New Orleans.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling, the Court of Appeals announced it would hear arguments on Wednesday.
Those who lose there would have the option of taking the case back to the Supreme Court.
SB4's implementation comes amid growing public concern about the U.S.-Mexico border.
A Gallup poll released in February found that nearly a third of Americans believe immigration is the biggest problem facing the country, ahead of government, the economy or inflation.