Texas asks court to decide if the state’s migrant arrest law went too far

During a hearing on Wednesday before a panel of federal judges, an attorney defending Texas’ initiative to arrest migrants entering the U.S. unlawfully acknowledged that the law might have gone too far, leaving it to the court to determine its legality.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously halted Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s stringent immigration policy, heard arguments regarding the matter. Similar proposals allowing local law enforcement to arrest migrants are also progressing in other Republican-dominated state legislatures, some of which are far from the U.S.-Mexico border.

Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson conceded that Texas might have pushed the boundaries too much with its law, known as SB4, which permits any Texas law enforcement officer to apprehend individuals suspected of illegal entry. Under SB4, migrants could either comply with a Texas judge’s order to leave the U.S. or face misdemeanor charges. Repeat offenders could be charged with felonies.

During the hearing, the Justice Department contended that Texas was encroaching on federal authority over immigration enforcement, while Texas maintained it would cooperate with federal authorities.

Questions were raised about how the state would enforce judges’ orders for migrants to return to their home countries. Nielson struggled to clarify the distinction between this process and current border practices.

The panel, led by Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, questioned the effectiveness of SB4’s provisions. Daniel Tenny, representing the U.S. government, criticized Texas’ attempt to reinterpret SB4 during the proceedings.

Judge Andrew Oldham proposed dissecting each provision of SB4 to ascertain potential conflicts with federal law. He also presented scenarios to attorneys regarding the law’s implications.

The Texas law, supported by Governor Abbott and other Republicans, is viewed as necessary due to perceived federal inaction on illegal immigration. However, opponents argue it could disrupt immigration enforcement and impact diplomatic relations.

The panel’s recent ruling, temporarily halting SB4, followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow the law’s enforcement, pending further review by the appeals court.

Immigration attorney Omar Ortiz Velez emphasized the importance of the hearing, anticipating a swift ruling from the panel, with an eventual appeal likely to reach the Supreme Court for final judgment.