Justin Hummel/Reuters
Migrants walk along the U.S.-Mexico border after the Republican-backed Texas law SB4 went into effect on March 19.
CNN
—
A lawyer defending Texas' controversial immigration law told a federal appeals court Wednesday that the state Legislature may have “overreached” when it passed the controversial immigration law last year.
The law, known as SB4, makes illegal entry into Texas a state crime and allows state judges to order immigrants deported.
In the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson said that in crafting the law, lawmakers tried to “walk to the edge” of what Supreme Court precedent allows states to do. Ta.
But, Nielson added, “To be fair, Texas may have gone too far.”
Nielson is arguing before the Circuit Committee, which has already suspended the law while the court considers it further. Mr. Nielson sought to downplay how broad the law is, arguing that it does not interfere with federal authorities' authority over immigration.
Nielson said Wednesday that under the Texas Attorney General's Office's interpretation of state law, immigrants who are subject to deportation orders from state courts should be turned over to federal immigration authorities at border ports and then released by federal authorities. He said he would decide. Enter the United States pending further formalities.
Chief Circuit Judge Priscilla Richman, a conservative judge who was a key vote in last week's 2-1 panel decision suspending the law, was skeptical of Mr. Neilson's attempts to limit the scope of the state law. Ta.
“What did this law do?” she asked Nielson.
Attorneys for the Justice Department who filed one of the lawsuits challenging the Texas law asked the appeals court not to depart from a previous ruling blocking the law.
“What happened this morning provides no basis for departing from the analysis set forth in this court's cease and desist opinion,” Justice Department attorney Daniel Tenney told the appeals court Wednesday.
Justice Andrew Oldham, the only member of the panel who appeared prepared to uphold the law, urged Biden administration lawyers to undermine the administration and other plaintiffs' claims against the law. posed a question.
“What the United States has never accomplished in this case, in the history of the nation, is to ostensibly invalidate a statute that never went into effect,” he said at one point. . “The United States' victory is an extraordinary achievement.”
Neilson said in court that SB4 is the state's attempt to enforce federal immigration laws that it says the Biden administration is ignoring.
“Of course, we understand that presidents change, and there is a good chance that different administrations will implement federal laws differently,” he said, arguing that the law may not be needed under different presidential administrations. did.
He went on to say that if a court decides that a portion of Texas law is invalid, it should “sever” that portion and leave other provisions on the books, rather than invalidating the entire law. Ta.
This story has been interrupted and will be updated.
