A divided Supreme Court of the United States, with a conservative majority, authorized this Tuesday that Texas can temporarily apply a controversial state law to detain undocumented immigrants who cross the border with Mexico, in a clear challenge to what for more than a century has been a federal power.
At the moment, Governor Greg Abbott, one of the most radical far-right, wins and the Biden government loses, which defended before the highest court that this legislation represents a clear violation of federal authority and that it can cause serious problems in relations. international. The case only emphasizes how immigration has become the main political issue ahead of next November’s presidential elections.
As is usual when the Supreme Court acts by emergency means, the decision does not have a reasoning, while at the same time it indicates that the substance of the matter must be resolved in the court of appeal.
However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, with the support of the other two liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, cast a vote dissenting from the majority opinion. “The court today invites more chaos and crises in immigration law enforcement,” Sotomayor said.
“Texas passed a law that directly regulates the entry and deportation of noncitizens and explicitly instructs state courts to ignore any ongoing federal immigration proceedings. “The law alters the federal-state balance of power that has existed for more than a century, in which the national government has had exclusive authority to allow and expel immigrants,” he insisted.
For her part, conservative Amy Coney Barrett, joined by her colleague Brett M. Kavanaugh, also expressed in writing the opinion, interpreted as that of the majority, that they returned the case to an appeals court for a quick decision. on whether the law should be paused while the matter is resolved in that lower court.
“If a decision is not made soon, the petitioners may return to this court,” Judge Barrett noted.
This law, called SB4, allows Texas police forces to detain immigrants for having entered the country illegally. Then a state judge can impose sanctions and even order expulsion to another territory or deportation. Abbott, the promoter of this regulation, stressed that it is the only way to defend against the crisis on the border with Mexico, in what he calls “an invasion.”
A federal judge blocked the law after a request from the White House, but another court clarified that it could take effect while the case was resolved. Meanwhile, Texas asked the Supreme Court, controlled by conservative judges (6-3), to allow its entry into force until the merits of the lawsuit were resolved.
Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in the highest court that the law was “flatly inconsistent” with the jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court. “These decisions recognize that the authority to admit or expel an immigrant is the entire responsibility of the national government, and Congress has enacted laws to address these issues.”
Prelogar disqualified Texas’ claim that it is fighting an invasion under the war clause of the Constitution. “The increase in unauthorized immigration is not an invasion within the meaning of that clause,” the attorney general stated in her letter.
Instead, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated that Texas has a sovereign constitutional right to defend itself from “the transnational violence of cartels that flood the state with fentanyl, weapons and all types of brutality.” And he added: “We are the first line of defense.”
Statistics show that undocumented immigrants who cross the Rio Grande are not the ones bringing drugs or weapons into the United States,
