Civil rights groups brought a lawsuit earlier this month, arguing that the sections involving the state’s judicial system are unconstitutional because they encroach on the federal government’s sole authority over immigration laws. It also challenged the state crime provision, saying that the law provides no defense for people who had federal permission to enter the country or those who might have pending immigration status, such as a green card.
U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra granted the preliminary injunction against these sections of the law on Thursday. The Reagan appointee had signaled during a Wednesday hearing that he considered them unconstitutional.
“Indeed, it is implausible to imagine each of the fifty United States having their own state immigration policy superseding the powers inherent in the United States as a Nation,” Ezra reiterated in his written ruling.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project said his decision reaffirmed that immigration laws are not up to the states, while adding that SB 4 would cause widespread racial profiling.
“Texas cannot override the U.S. Constitution and should stop wasting time attempting to do so,” the groups said in a joint statement to The Texas Tribune.
Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office didn’t immediately respond to a comment request.
This lawsuit came after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed a previous legal challenge against SB 4, which was brought by immigrants and organizations that work with migrants. But instead of ruling on the constitutionality of the law, the appeals court dismissed that case last month after finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.
Texas leaders, which cheered the appeals court’s dismissal as a win for public safety, have insisted that SB 4 is valid because it mirrors federal immigration law.
In addition, they have argued that Texas has a sovereign right to defend its borders. In 2023 when the law was being proposed, there were record-high illegal border crossings, which officials said amounted to an invasion. Those figures have since dropped drastically.
During the Wednesday hearing, David Bryant with the attorney general’s office didn’t say the state was abandoning the invasion argument despite acknowledging the slower pace of illegal border crossings. Bryant did argue that the case should be dismissed because SB 4 had not taken effect and that Department of Public Safety Director Freeman Martin, the only named defendant in the lawsuit, had not decided how state police would enforce the law.
In the meantime, DPS and many law enforcement agencies across Texas have already partnered with federal immigration agents through the 287(g) program, including under the task force model that allows officers to question individuals about their immigration status during routine policing work.
This article first appeared on The Texas Tribune.
