SCOTUS Green Lights Texas Immigration Law Allowing State Deportation of Illegal Aliens — Liberal Heads Explode
In a huge loss for the Biden Administration, the law lets Texas stop illegals from entering the state and lets state judges deport them
Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to stay implementation of a Texas state law allowing deportation of illegal immigrants.
NBC News has the story: Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce immigration law:
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that it will allow Texas to enforce for now a contentious new law that gives local police the power to arrest migrants.
The conservative-majority court, with three liberal justices dissenting, rejected an emergency request by the Biden administration, which said states have no authority to legislate on immigration, an issue the federal government has sole authority over.
That means the law can go into effect while litigation continues in lower courts. It could still be blocked at a later date.
The three liberal Justices dissented and were not happy:
“The court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also objected to the decision….
In a separate opinion, Kagan wrote that the Texas law appears to conflict with federal law, noting that “the subject of immigration generally, and the entry and removal of noncitizens particularly, are matters long thought the special province of the federal government.”
The case has a unique court history:
The law in question, known as SB4, allows police to arrest migrants who illegally cross the border from Mexico and imposes criminal penalties. It would also empower state judges to order people to be deported to Mexico….
A federal judge blocked the law after the Biden administration sued, but the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a brief order that it could go into effect March 10 if the Supreme Court declined to intervene. The appeals court has not yet decided whether to grant the federal government’s request to block the law.
On March 4, Justice Samuel Alito issued a temporary freeze on the law to give the Supreme Court time to consider the federal government’s request.
Consider it they did, and the Court found the Biden Administration’s attempt to block the law unavailing.
HUGE WIN.
The Supreme Court will now ALLOW the Texas National Guard to arrest & deport illegal aliens within the state of Texas.
A big blow to the Biden administration. pic.twitter.com/93jyeJNzOC
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 19, 2024
🚨🚨 HUGE WIN: Texas has defeated the Biden Administration’s and ACLU’s emergency motions at the Supreme Court. Our immigration law, SB 4, is now in effect. As always, it’s my honor to defend Texas and its sovereignty, and to lead us to victory in court.
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) March 19, 2024
As expected, liberals, who love illegal immigrants, are very upset:
God damn these Republican assholes on the Supreme Court. https://t.co/XEqKpaJ0rg
— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) March 19, 2024
BREAKING: The US Supreme Court has allowed Texas to start arresting and deporting people who enter the country illegally, refusing to block a new law that the Biden administration says will be an unprecedented intrusion on federal power to set immigration policy.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) March 19, 2024
Mar. 19, 2024: So SCOTUS is allowing Texas state police to arrest migrants suspected of crossing its southern border illegally, ignoring the federal government’s power to set immigration policy? The federal government should stop giving Texas $68 billion in annual federal aid… pic.twitter.com/TjjxGNbXX8
— Route60plus (@Route_60plus) March 19, 2024
Liberals currently 👇🏼🤣🤣🤣🎯 pic.twitter.com/LPOQH3rMgX
— 🫦 𝐂𝐢𝐂𝐢 (@CiCi_Texas_45) March 4, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
God bless Texas!
Doing the job the federal government refuses to do.
I think that is the heart of the matter. If the Federal Government refuses to enforce the law then a State should have the right to protect itself and make a law that mirrors the Federal Law enforcing it until the Federal Government decides to do so.
For Brandon to not enforce the Law of The Land and seek to prohibit States from doing so makes little sense unless he is trying to destroy the country.
Yas! Time for the local police to raid those stash houses with 24 illegals in 3 bedrooms.
Excellent news! TX is not gonna be enforcing Federal law instead it will be enforcing a TX statute. That’s the key distinction from prior State level efforts. Just as bank robbery can be punished by State or Federal law this situation is not materially different from that. The States retain Sovereignty so there is no double jeopardy and the 9th/10th amendments seem not quite so dead letter as the leftists would like.
Yes, the bank robbery example underscores how idiotic the Supreme Court’s position was in Arizona v. US. In fact, there are a LOT of example where local/state police share concurrent jurisdiction with federal law enforcement…like national parks, for example. There are even jurisdictional agreement for a number of military bases where DOD allows local police to effect arrest in certain circumstances and the Court has never had a problem with those agreements.
The current TX strategy differs from what AZ was trying at least as I recall. AZ was attempting to enforce Federal statutes while TX will be enforcing its own State level statutes. That’s a very key distinction.
This is IMO the way forward, to endorse a strategy of utilizing the Sovereign powers of the individual States to make and enforce laws. Even where those laws are redundant to Federal law. This strategy doesn’t in any way preclude the Federal Gov’t from acting to enforce its statutes but it does offer the State gov’t an opportunity to act to enforce its own laws when the Federal gov’t declines to act. Separate Sovereigns have the right to make and enforce laws even about the same/similar actions/elements that constitute the crime/violation. A 6-3 vote to allow TX to proceed with enforcement seems to indicate a majority is at least open to the basic arguments. Best news about immigration/border security in a very long time.
Arizona wasn’t enforcing federal laws. Arizona was just detaining illegals and alerting the feds. Barky (colluding with Mexico) sued that the executive branch has “the right” to not have Arizona inform them of illegals who need to be deported. The Barky junta claimed that it had “the right’ to not faithfully execute any laws it didn’t like … and, somehow, the SCOTUS agreed with that. It was crazy.
AZ was detaining illegal aliens as defined under Federal law not under a State Statute. That’s the difference here with what TX has done. TX is going to use State Statutes to define criminal behavior (illegally entry/presence in TX) and make arrests and ‘deportation’ decisions base on wholly upon TX Statutes NOT Federal law.
Again that’s a big distinction b/c here TX is not relying upon Federal law so there isn’t a true nexus linkage the Feds can point to and argue TX is inhibiting or interfering with Federal law. All the Feds can really do is make the case that ‘only’ the Feds can create or enforce immigration laws which is a much tougher argument as the Constitution grants Feds exclusive power to determine Naturalization but NOT over immigration. The current framework of Feds exclusive immigration authority is just based on precedent not an explicit constitutional grant of power.
No. Arizona passed a state law that was a mirror image of the federal law. SCOTUS ten years ago ruled that it was the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Actually, in my home State there is a jurisdictional agreement between State Police and Border Officials allowing State Police, in certain circumstances, to operate there.
So Texas is now authorized to enforce the federal laws that Biden refuses to.
Let’s see if the ‘under new management’ RNC is smart enough to make some money on it for once.
Not exactly. TX is allowed to enforce its State immigration statutes that mirror federal immigration law.
This distinction leaves the federal government in charge of federal policy (which States cannot dicate). The States are free to pass concurrent laws and set their own enforcement policy on the State laws.
Why would you have a federal law and refuse (willfully) to enforce it? If the U.S. (Biden) neglects his duty, it’s up to the states to take up the slack.
The fact that Biden refuses to do his duty to faithfully follow the federal laws regarding immigration (and many other issues) is grounds for impeachment.
If only some in Congress had the cojones to step up and do what the Constitution requires.
As a kid, I remember the United States as it was constituted. Now, I live in another land, where the laws are ignored unless you are among the privileged few. Our founding fathers would hang their heads in shame at how far we have diverged from their ideal.
That’s easy. Because you don’t want to. Because you find it to your political advantage to neglect your duty. The question is whether anyone can do anything about it, and so far the answer appears to be no.
They don’t have that power without Biden’s permission, and he refuses.
It certainly is. And if the were 60 Republican senators he would be gone. But there aren’t.
1. It’s not a matter of cojones, it’s a matter of politics. Democrat senators are not going to remove a Democrat president, especially when most of them agree with what he’s doing. 2. The constitution doesn’t require the president’s removal, it merely allows it.
Think back to Marbury v Madison. The Supreme Court decided that Madison was breaking the law, but that it had no authority to do anything about it, so Marbury lost.
Correction: 67 Republican senators, not 60.
A rare good choice from the supreme, hopefully it leads to a rare good decision where the border is finally enforced.
It will be a huge job running down and expelling all those illegals.
Which can’t be done in the very short time until the 5th circuit decides whether to issue a stay or not.
The supreme’s choice had nothing to do with any of the issues involved. It was entirely about an administrative question: Whether the supreme court should interfere with circuit courts’ administrative stays. It’s never done so before, and this court said it wasn’t going to be the first to do so. Wait until the administrative stay turns into a stay pending appeal (if it does), and we’ll see what the supreme court has to say then.
I think people are getting a little ahead of themselves. If they read the story or the opinion they will realize it is exactly what you say. SCOTUS didn’t greenlight anything, they just said that the lower courts should get their job done first before any appeal reached SCOTUS much like Jack Smith’s Hail Mary in DC. The Courts are set up the way they are for a reason.
California here they come right back where they did not start from…
This law could be the bussing of illegal aliens strategy times 10000. Many illegal aliens will now seek alternative entry points such as New Mexico and Arizona which might force their state governments ( led by Democrat governors) to act or see their state services overwhelmed. It could even push both states to vote for Trump.
Yes that is one of the more likely outcomes of this ruling, one that the cartels and coyotes have been working on. Which state do you think will see the bigger increase?
Between Arizona and New Mexico I would guess New Mexico since that is a more Democrat party state and less likely to immediately mimic the Texas law.
Which one has more towns on the border for the invaders to steal from?
New Mexico is doubtful as there is nothing within reach of the border there. Look for Arizona and California to be overwhelmed with illegals. Arizona by land and California by sea.
This is good news for the United States and Texas. Hopefully this helps to stop all the idiotic Legal Insurrection pro-Trump commentators here who are always bashing Governor Abbott about everything he does. Abbot is 100% better than Trump was on the Wall. Trump shouted “BUILD THE WALL!” at every election rally, but he never built the wall, even when he had a Congress and Senate with all Republicans. It’s time for a change,
Who was building the wall first?
The main problem is not who you support, the main problem is that you do not have a command of the facts.
A) “Trump shouted “BUILD THE WALL!” at every election rally, but he never built the wall, …”
During Trump’ term:
1) Due to natural borders , a manmade border wall was not needed along the entire USA/ MEX border. (1,954 miles)
2) 1,000 miles of new/ replaced border wall was proposed.
3) A significantly better border wall design was developed: hardened steel-bollard Barriers, all-weather Access Roads, Perimeter lighting, Enforcement cameras, and other related technology.
4) Priority was given to problem areas and land already owned by the Federal govt: CA, AZ, NM.
5) ~450 miles of the new border wall design was installed by EOY 2020.
B) “… even when he had a Congress and Senate with all Republicans.”
6) Congress would not provide the money Trump requested to build the wall.
7) So Trump redirected money from other programs and appropriations – Defense Construction account, Homeland Security appropriations, Drug Forfeiture funds, etc. – to fund construction.
Some of us have not forgotten how successful Trump was, and how successful he was despite attempts by Republicans – Speaker Ryan – to not support him or the voters.
Many who continue to say Trump didn’t build the wall like promised seem to forget the fight he had trying to get it done. Despite the efforts to stop him he got some of it done where others would have just given up. In fact, of all the promises he made on the campaign the only one I can think of off hand that he didn’t try and get done but was stymied by Congress refusing the funds or being sued endlessly is to lock Hillary up. She should be in jail but he was right not to do it to a political opponent. In hindsight, he should have considering what is going on right now.
Legit shocked. I guess things can get bad enough that even ACB, Kavanaugh AND ROBERTS can dig deep enough to say: Enough.
Now would be the time for red state governors to marshal every NG resource than can find and surge it to the border. As I understand the statute, law enforcement has to witness the illegal crossing to make an arrest. So, they’re going to need a lot more bodies as that TX border is very, very long.
LE has to personally witness it? That’s an absurd restriction. I can’t think of any other crime requiring that. If I allege you have committed murder the police can use my affidavit to arrest you. They do not need personal knowledge of the crime.
Effectively yes…at least that’s how it’s described by Texas State Senator Paul Bettencourt, one of the principal authors of the 2017 law.
What’s really amazing is when you read the law, it’s not Draconian at all. It’s incredibly reasonable and it offers extensive protections for illegals and significantly limits law enforcement’s ability to arrest illegals in many places…schools, places of worship, hospitals, for instance. Honestly, it’s probably a more proscriptive law on police than it is an enabling piece of legislation with only a small part of the legislation dedicated to expanding law enforcement authority. And yet, that tiny section of the law is making liberals lose their mind.
They didn’t say “Enough”. They said “5th circuit, get off your behinds and make a decision that we can review properly. Either grant a stay or don’t; either way we’re likely to be back here reviewing it.”
I am no constitutional scholar but I am a bit surprised. I LIKE the ruling and think it does something important for the country…but I would like someone to explain it for me, please.
I excerpted the key parts here. It’s a short read. But basically there’s nothing to like or dislike about it, and it doesn’t do anything important for or against the country. It’s entirely about an administrative question.
If the positions had been reversed the decision would have been exactly the same, because the only thing the court decided was that it should not be in the business of reviewing administrative stays, which are only supposed to last for a few days anyway. But it said that if this one lasts longer, Biden should come back to them.
Elie Mystal needs to go stuff himself.
Route60Plus, we would be more than happy to reconstitute the Republic of Texas, with something like the ninth largest economy in the world.
Hopefully, this will wake up/shake up some other states…
You could have said that a long time ago, and probably did. He’s an idiot. But in this case he’s not being any more of an idiot than the people on the right who are crowing about this. Both sides need to understand that this is purely an administrative decision and nothing else.
Good for the SC and good news for Texas! Let’s hope other states follow Texas’ example.
Does this create an opening for other states to start expelling their illegals? How about a database for sightings of illegals?
Just tossing this in, but the concept of “Militia” is defined in Federal Statute and long has been accepted by the courts:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
It breaks down to the Organized Militia being the National Guard and Reserves under the control of the Federal Government, States being allowed to have their own State Guards which are under the control of state governments and NOT the Federal Government, and the Unorganized Militia which to be honest when the courts are done after accounting for the Civil Rights Laws, etc. means pretty much everybody else [male or female] who are at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States.
Texas is one of the 19 states plus Puerto Rico with a State Guard, and arguably could deploy them and try to call up their Unorganized Militia to defend the border.
Subotai Bahadur
“The court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos,” liberal Justice Sonia “Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also objected to the decision….
Cue Gomer Pyle… Balance of power? The Biden Hunta was claiming all of it, to the detriment of even blue states. “Sow chaos??” What do the lefties think is going on now, a “peaceful invasion?”
“In a separate opinion, Kagan wrote that the Texas law appears to conflict with federal law, noting that “the subject of immigration generally, and the entry and removal of noncitizens particularly, are matters long thought the special province of the federal government.”
And we’ve been waiting for over 3 years for them to get to it. Nothing but figurative crickets and the literal sound of buses and airplanes.
Kagan clearly doesn’t understand the difference in meaning between “redundant” and “conflicting”. The TX law might be redundant but progressives never give any evidence for allegations of “conflict”. An actual conflict would be the TX law permitting summary deportation of legal permanent residents, something Federal law doesn’t permit.
The key word in Kagan’s opinion is “thought”.
As in, everyone thought immigration and border control were the exclusive province of the federal government, so nobody tried to pass or enforce a State-level immigration law.
What that verbiage tells me is that she’s writing a dissent because her ideology demands it, but deep down she knows the majority got it right. She must conflate societal assumptions with Constitutional law for her argument to make sense! (Alternatively, she’s just a crappy writer who’s not putting any thought [heh!] into how she words her opinion.)
I’d issue a small correction, her staffers are crappy writers who don’t put any legal thought into how she words her opinion.
Well, schiff. How is the liberal cesspool going to get those criminal illegal alien votes now?
I predict the feds will try to find and bus them to Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — key “Battleground States” in Presidential elections — before Texas authorities can catch them.
IOW, the U.S. government will become one of the biggest human trafficking organizations on the planet.
The Executive branch does not get to “set immigration policy”. That is the job of Congress. The administration is bound to faithfully execute the laws, which are the “policies”.
Further, an invasion is not “immigration policy” and orchestrating such an invasion is plain, old TREASON.
Meh. Who wants to bet that in a few days another Hawaiian Federal judge issues another stay and reopens the border?
It’s in the 5th circuit’s hands, and SCOTUS has just told it to make a decision PDQ. It doesn’t even care what the 5th circuit decides, just decide something. Grant the stay, or deny it. Either way the loser will appeal.
Then Hawaii will need to have quite a few airplanes full of illegals sent directly to them to share the wealth. Let them deal with it.
That should be happening anyhow, especially as it’s much harder to get out of Hawaii than any other State besides Alaska. If you fly them there, they stay unless the Hawaiians want to put to get rid of them.
Perhaps this law and pending decision was why the administration was so worked up by Republicans not passing their “glorious” immigration bill – which allowd in 5,000 per day and all the “gotaways”. That bill would have legalized almost the full number we are now getting. What amazes me is that any Republicans supported it. The 5,000 per day was not hidden.
Pray Texas works fast and furiously before the window of opportunity closes.
God only knows what Democrats can do to screw this up because you know they’re gonna try with all their might.
That depends on what you see as the opportunity. Mexico has said that they will not accept repatriations… SMH… repatriations from the people Texas arrests and tries to deport. I don’t get it.
IN my mind sending these criminals back was a huge win,, now that can’t happen?
Then push them across, f*ck Mexico.
All this coverage is nonsense. This is not a “huge victory” for anyone. The merits of the case did not enter into it at all. And the decision will only last a few days.
Here are the key parts of the decision (or rather Barrett’s concurring opinion, since the majority didn’t bother writing anything):
That last sentence is key. “If a decision does not issue soon, the applicants may return to this Court.” In other words, 5th circuit, get off your behinds. You have all the information you need, stop with this administrative stay nonsense and decide whether you’re going to issue a proper stay. That way whoever loses can appeal to us.
No, it’s not a huge loss, it’s a very minor loss.
A very short “later date”. SCOTUS gave the 5th circuit days to defecate or get off the pot. Either issue a proper stay or don’t. Either way the loser can appeal.
No, it found that it didn’t want to be the first SCOTUS in history to second-guess a circuit court’s administrative stay. The administration’s arguments didn’t come into it at all. But it invited the administration to come back if the 5th circuit doesn’t act PDQ.
Both sides’ reactions cited above are stupid and premature. Within days the 5th circuit will decide whether to issue a stay of the district court’s injunction, and then we’ll be in an entirely different position.
I just read that the 5th circuit today barred Texas from enforcing the law and will hold hearings. The article said video hearings this week.
OK, that was exactly what the SCOTUS invited the 5th circuit to do.
Actually it’s not what SCOTUS invited it to do. That will apparently happen after tomorrow’s hearing. This is just a temporary measure so that TX doesn’t go crazy and start rounding people up overnight. Tomorrow or very soon thereafter TX will find out whether the district court’s injunction will be stayed or not.
“Go crazy” is not appropriate. Enforcing its laws and rounding up illegal aliens makes perfect sense.
and I do hope they got some rounded up and arrested during that brief interlude of freedom from leftist tyranny.
“contentious” – NBC exposing its bias, as always, and telling its idiot readers what they are supposed to think about the story being reported.
Notice that they always do so in the very first sentence, because liberals can’t be bothered to actually read much of anything.
If SCOTUS had opined the other way, it would have been a “historic” ruling.
Well observed. This is why Glenn Reynolds labeled the news industry “Democrats with bylines”. But either way it would have been stupid; there is nothing for the left to be upset about in this decision, nor anything for the right to crow about. It’s entirely about a question that nobody who isn’t a judge really cares about, and nothing else. And it’s intended to last only for days.
Indeed. If SCOTUS had intervened it would have been monumental. They just said that the case had to go through normal channels of review like every other case.
The headline is very misleading but that is what we get now. Screeching headlines that have little to do with the actual story for those who just scan but do not read. Headlines now tell a story but not the story.
Aaaand, that appeals court slapped the hold back on, according to NY Times headline. Paywall so I don’t know the legal reasoning. Is it good form to snap back at SCOTUS like this? Hopefully SCOTUS will snap back at them with a more durable ruling.
Yeah, I’m not knowledgeable enough to really understand this. I wonder how this works – an appeals court contradicting SCOTUS within 24 hours.. I’m not sure if I’ve seen this before.
“Contradicting SCOTUS”?! How did you come up with that idea? The panel did not contradict SCOTUS at all. It did what SCOTUS expected it to do.
Nobody “snapped back” at SCOTUS. The 5th circuit panel did the responsible thing and dissolved the administrative stay that SCOTUS found so annoying. Tomorrow the 5th circuit will decide whether to issue a proper stay; it doesn’t really matter how it decides, just so it decides something. That way the supreme court can consider an appeal from it.
Our family lives in a Central Texas county of about 35,000 people. When I graduated from our public high school in 1966 the percentage of Hispanics in the school system was about 2%. Now it’s 60%. One cannot even begin to describe the damage done to academics. Further, emergency medical services are effectively unavailable because of the huge numbers wanting emergency care. This has been a catastrophe. Although we live 5 blocks from the school, my grandchildren will be bused 30 miles each way to a private school that has adequate academics. In dealing with my own two children we paid a total of 12 private tutors as we realized what a disaster we were facing.
How is it that Biden can refuse to enforce US law? Could he refuse to enforce the laws against murder? How about bribery and espionage by Democrats?
Yes, he can refuse to enforce any law he doesn’t want to. The same applies to any executive branch. That’s executive discretion.
Could he also assert via EO that illegal immigrants who are “protected by the Constitution” also have the right to vote in Federal elections?
He can assert anything he likes. Everyone in the USA is protected by the constitution. That’s not his opinion, it’s what the constitution says, and there is no dispute about it. And no, who has the right to vote in federal elections is largely up to each state, with a few restrictions in the constitution, and more in federal law. The president doesn’t get a say in it. Executive orders are not laws, they’re just instructions from an employer to his employees.