Again in December, after Texas Governor Abbott signed into legislation an immigration enforcement legislation, S.B. 4, Josh Blackman and I had dueling posts (Josh’s right here, mine right here) on whether or not S.B. 4 was preempted by federal legislation underneath the Supreme Courtroom’s choice in Arizona v. United States (2012).
In gentle of that trade, I assumed I would level out that right now, in United States v. Texas, Decide David Ezra preliminarily enjoined S.B. 4.
From the opinion:
A number of components warrant an injunction. First, the Supremacy Clause and Supreme Courtroom precedent affirm that states could not train immigration enforcement energy besides as approved by the federal authorities. Second, SB 4 conflicts with key provisions of federal immigration legislation, to the detriment of america’ international relations and treaty obligations. Third, surges in immigration don’t represent an “invasion” throughout the that means of the Structure, neither is Texas partaking in warfare by implementing SB 4. Lastly, to permit Texas to completely supersede federal directives on the idea of an invasion would quantity to nullification of federal legislation and authority—a notion that’s antithetical to the Structure and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts for the reason that Civil Conflict.
In response to the brand new choice, Governor Abbott issued an announcement 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 President Biden’s border crisis.”
Keep tuned, as all the time.