In December, after Texas Governor Abbott signed an immigration enforcement bill, SB 4, Josh Blackman and I had dueling posts (Josh’s here, mine here) over whether SB 4 had been anticipated by federal law based on the Supreme Court decision in Arizona vs. United States (2012).
In light of that exchange, I thought I’d point out that today, in United States vs. Texas, Judge David Ezra preliminarily enjoined SB 4.
From the opinion:
Several factors justify an injunction. First, the Supremacy Clause and Supreme Court precedent state that states cannot exercise immigration control power unless authorized by the federal government. Second, SB 4 conflicts with key provisions of federal immigration law, to the detriment of U.S. foreign relations and treaty obligations. Third, increased immigration does not constitute an “invasion” under the Constitution, nor is Texas engaged in a war by enforcing SB 4. Finally, allow Texas to permanently supersede federal directives based on a he invasion would amount to the nullification of federal law and authority, a notion antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts since the Civil War.
In response to the new decision, Governor Abbott released a statement declaring that “Texas will immediately appeal this decision, and we will not back down in our fight to protect our state – and our nation – from the border crisis of President Biden.”
Stay tuned, as always.