CNN
—
The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave Texas a path to immediately begin enforcing a controversial immigration law that allows state authorities to arrest and detain people suspected of entering the country illegally.
The court's three liberals disagreed.
A legal challenge to the law is underway in a federal appeals court, but the ruling marks a temporary but important victory for Texas, which has been battling the Biden administration over immigration policy. .
Tuesday's order ends a day earlier when the court had issued an indefinite stay of proceedings, blocking the law from taking effect.
Senate Bill 4, signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in December, makes illegal entry into Texas a state crime and allows state judges to order the deportation of immigrants. Immigration enforcement is typically a federal government role.
The law immediately raised concerns among immigrant advocates in Texas, where Latinos make up 40% of the population, about increased racial profiling and attempts by state authorities to detain or deport them.
A federal judge in Austin had blocked the state from enforcing the law. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a temporary stay of the lower court's ruling and said the law would go into effect on March 10 unless the Supreme Court takes action. Two emergency appeals from the Biden administration and others soon followed.
Abbott on Tuesday called the court's order a “positive development” but acknowledged the case will continue in the Court of Appeals.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuesday that she “fundamentally disagrees” with the ruling.
“SB 4 will not only make Texas communities less safe, it will also burden law enforcement and create chaos and confusion at our southern border,” she said in a statement. “SB 4 is just one example of how Republican officials are politicizing the border issue while blocking real solutions.”
As is common in emergency applications, the Supreme Court did not explain why.
However, a concurring opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that the appeals court had only issued a temporary “administrative” order. Barrett appears to want to prevent the Supreme Court from considering such an order.
“To my knowledge, this court has never reviewed an appellate court’s decision to enter or not enter an administrative stay,” Barrett wrote. “I don't participate in business. When the administrative stay is invoked, it should be a brief prelude to the main event: a judgment on the application for a stay pending appeal.”
Barrett said he believes it would be “unwise to bring an emergency action in this court on whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion at this preliminary stage.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose dissent was joined by fellow liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the order would “invite further confusion and crisis in immigration enforcement.”
In his dissent, Sotomayor said the law “upends the balance of federal and state power that has existed for more than a century, in which the national government has had exclusive authority over the entry and removal of noncitizens. ” he wrote.
“Texas can now immediately implement its own law that imposes criminal charges and requires deportation to Mexico for thousands of non-citizens,” Sotomayor wrote. “This law disrupts delicate foreign relations, impedes the protection of individuals fleeing persecution, impedes the federal government's aggressive enforcement efforts, and impedes the ability of federal agencies to detect and monitor imminent security threats.” It would undermine reporting of abuse and human trafficking by non-citizens.”
In a brief dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said her views on the issues in the case were “as usual preliminary.”
“But immigration in general, and the admission and expulsion of noncitizens in particular, have long been considered the special jurisdiction of the federal government,” the liberal justices continued.
The New Orleans-based Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on April 3.
Barrett and Kavanaugh, who cast key votes on the high court, said the justices should rule on the Court of Appeals regarding very short-term “administrative” stays commonly used to give courts additional days for hearings. I wrote that we should not make second-guess decisions. Briefs.
Barrett wrote that if the 5th Circuit does not rule soon, the Biden administration and other parties in the lawsuit could return to the Supreme Court.
“There may come a time, whether in this case or another, when this court concludes that the administrative stay effectively becomes a stay pending appeal, and we will be forced to reconsider it accordingly,” she said. wrote. “However, at this point in the case, that conclusion would be premature.”
The Fifth Circuit is scheduled to hear arguments Wednesday on whether to put the law back on hold to consider a more thorough challenge to it next month.
Lawyer Tami Goodlett, who represents some of the challengers to the law, said the high court's order was “unfortunate” and “unnecessarily puts people's lives at risk.” .
“We remain committed to the fight to permanently overturn SB4 to show the public that no state has the power to overtake federal immigration authorities,” she said.
Immigrant arrivals remain low after record high in December
The number of migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border remains low following a record increase in December, a Department of Homeland Security official told CNN.
On Monday, for example, U.S. Border Patrol apprehended about 4,300 migrants at the southern border, one agency official said. This is down from more than 9,000 daily encounters in December, during an unprecedented surge in migrants.
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the number of immigration arrests decreased by 50% in January compared to December. Border officials encountered more than 176,200 migrants at the U.S. southern border in January, down from December when nearly 302,000 people crossed the border. CBP has not yet released February totals.
Homeland Security officials have attributed the decline in border crossings to a doubling of enforcement efforts due to high-level talks between the U.S. and Mexico, but the encounters come amid record migration in the Western Hemisphere. They warn that the number may increase again.
“Mexico strongly condemns any measures that allow state and local authorities to carry out immigration operations, detain and deport nationals and foreign nationals to Mexican territory,” Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement Tuesday. He also expressed concerns about human rights. Impact on immigrant communities.
The Biden administration, two immigrant advocacy groups and El Paso County are challenging the law.
In their appeal to the high court, lawyers for the administration argued that the law would “significantly” change the “nearly 150-year-old status quo between the United States and the states regarding immigration.”
“People can have different opinions about immigration, and they always have, and the state of Texas may be deeply concerned about recent immigration,” immigration groups and El Paso County attorneys wrote in court documents. ing. “But the same was true in California in the 1870s, in Pennsylvania and Michigan in the 1930s, and in Arizona in 2012. Yet, for 150 years, this court has continued to rule on the admission and deportation of immigrants. We have made it clear that we cannot allow the state to regulate core areas.”
Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other state officials told the Supreme Court that “the Constitution protects Texas from violent transnational cartels flooding Texas with fentanyl, weapons, and all manner of other atrocities.” “We recognize that we have a sovereign right to protect the state of Texas.” ”
Officials say Texas is “the nation's first line of defense against cross-border violence,” and that the state is facing “deadly threats to the federal government's inability or unwillingness to protect its borders.” “We are forced to deal with the consequences.”
This story has been updated with additional details.
CNN's Jose Manuel Alvarez with Priscilla Alvarez Samantha Woldenberg contributed to this report.
