Biden and Trump aim to score points in political hotspot on dual border visit

The Texas law was scheduled to go into effect on March 5th. The bill would be put on hold pending a federal lawsuit to overturn the law. Judge Ezra, who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, said in granting the preliminary injunction Thursday that the federal government would likely ultimately prevail on the merits.

In his 114-page decision, Judge Ezra wrote, “Despite the emphasis some may place on Texas’ criticism of the federal government’s response to migrants at the border, Differences do not justify violation of the supremacy clause.” of the Constitution.”

He said that among the many legal issues posed by the Texas law, it would “prevent many asylum applications” and “seriously undermine” relations with Mexico. He said the law’s provision that allows state judges to order the deportation of noncitizens is “clearly unconstitutional.”

Gov. Greg Abbott, who has been active in creating a state-level border security system for the past three years, said he plans to immediately appeal the decision.

“We will not back down from the fight to protect our state and nation from President Biden’s border crisis,” Abbott said in a statement.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals could step in and issue an injunction, halting Judge Ezra’s injunction and allowing the law to go into effect while it considers Texas’ appeal. At a hearing earlier this month, Texas lawyers, anticipating the possibility of a ruling against them, argued for a lower court to stay the ruling pending an appeal. Judge Ezra denied the request.

The judge’s ruling came just before Mr. Abbott appeared in court with former President Donald J. Trump in the Texas border town of Eagle Pass, where the state’s enforcement is most aggressive. President Biden was also scheduled to visit Brownsville on the Texas border on Thursday.

Texas has made several efforts, including the state installing a 1,000-foot barrier of buoys in the middle of the Rio Grande last year and separately installing miles of bellows wire along the banks of the Rio Grande. It has been fighting the Biden administration on legal fronts. river.

The battle over a new state law known as Senate Bill 4 was the most significant legal standoff. The law directly challenged the federal government’s historically exclusive role in arresting, detaining, and deporting undocumented immigrants. Authorization.

Legal experts say the fight over the law is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, with Judge Ezra predicting the case will reach the U.S. Supreme Court during a three-hour hearing earlier this month. He also said that he is doing so.

That would give the 6-3 conservative majority an opportunity to reconsider a landmark 2012 decision in an Arizona case that upheld the federal government’s authority to set immigration policy.

It is already illegal under federal law to cross into the United States between legal ports of entry. In reality, however, most immigrants are not prosecuted in the first place. Most of those apprehended are not trying to flee authorities, but rather are detained by U.S. Border Patrol agents to give them a chance to seek asylum protection. Most asylum claims are ultimately rejected, but cases can take years to resolve, during which time migrants are allowed to remain in the country.

The Texas Legislature designed SB 4 to closely follow federal laws against illegal entry, making it a state-level misdemeanor to enter Texas from Mexico. Illegal entry into the country for the second time is a felony under the law.

Immigration groups, civil rights activists and some Texas Democrats say the bill would not only make it more difficult for immigrants who are persecuted in their home countries to seek asylum, but also protect legitimate asylum seekers from prosecution in state courts. The bill has been criticized as not protecting the country.

Critics also say the law could lead to racial profiling. The law would allow law enforcement officers across Texas to arrest anyone suspected of entering the country illegally within the past two years, even far from the border.

“This is a slap in the face to federal immigration law,” Judge Ezra said during the hearing.

Lawyers for the Biden administration argued in hearings and filings that the Texas law conflicts with numerous federal laws governing immigration and deportation procedures. The administration also said the law would impede the federal government’s ability to manage its foreign relations, noting that the Mexican government has already filed a complaint against the Texas bill.

Under SB4, immigrants charged with entering Texas illegally could be ordered to return to Mexico during court proceedings or be prosecuted if they do not agree to go there. Mexican authorities said they had “rejected” any law that would allow state and local governments to send migrants, the majority of whom are not Mexican, back across the border to Mexico.

“To the extent that Texas wishes to assist in immigration enforcement, it can do so by working with the federal government or by working with Congress to change its laws,” the Justice Department wrote in its motion for an injunction. There is.

Texas attorneys from Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office opposed the injunction, arguing that the state law does not conflict with federal law because it is “compatible” with existing federal prohibitions on illegal entry.

Lawyers for the state have described the recent arrival of record numbers of migrants at the Texas border as an “all-out invasion of transnational criminal cartels” and say Texas has no power to protect itself. He claimed that there was. They pointed to Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits a nation from engaging in war “unless actually invaded.”

Under pressure from immigration hardliners and former Trump administration officials, Mr. Abbott said he would invoke the “invasion” clause in November 2022. The state has cited the constitutional provision in other pending cases between Texas and the federal government.

This argument had previously been rejected by Justice Ezra, who was also the presiding judge in the Bouibaria case. He did so again in Thursday’s decision.

“Granting Texas permanent supremacy over federal directives on the grounds of invasion amounts to nullifying federal law and federal authority. This idea is unconstitutional and has been clearly articulated by federal courts since the Civil War. “I have been rejected,” he wrote.

During the hearing on SB 4, Judge Ezra asked frequent questions and appeared to have strong skepticism about the law, especially when an attorney representing the Texas attorney general spoke.

“For the sake of argument, let me say that I agree with you,” he told State’s Attorney Ryan Walters. In that case, California might want to pass its own immigration and deportation laws, he said. Maine will likely follow, he said, followed by Louisiana, Arizona and New Mexico.

“This transforms us from the United States of America into a confederation of states,” Judge Ezra said. “What a nightmare.”