State vs. Federal Power: Assessing the Constitutionality of Senate Bill 4 and its Impact on Immigration Policy

Passed in November 2023 during a Texas legislative session, Senate Bill 4, or S.B. 4, is an extremely strict anti-immigration law that subjects people who violate federal immigration law, or who have certain statuses under federal immigration law, to state criminal penalties. Additionally, it establishes its own state removal system and permits state judges to issue removal orders. Essentially, under S.B. 4 state and local police officers would be allowed to arrest people they suspect of being in the country illegally, and would allow judges to order the deportation of immigrants into Mexico, regardless of their country of origin.

S.B. 4 was originally set to go into effect on March 5, however after the U.S. government and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) both filed lawsuits against it, Senior U.S. District Judge David Ezra issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the enactment of the law. In response to this, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay on that decision, giving the plaintiff seven days to go to the Supreme Court to respond. The Supreme Court then issued an order denying the application to vacate the administrative stay, effectively putting S.B. 4 into effect on Tuesday, March 19, 2024. In response, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dissolved their previous administrative stay, putting the injunction back into effect, pausing the implementation of S.B. 4. Finally, the 5th Circuit court denied Texas’ stay, which would allow the law to be put into effect, holding out for oral arguments from Texas and the federal government regarding the legality of S.B. 4s implementation.

The main argument of the case rests on S.B. 4s interpretation of state and federal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs, both the U.S. federal government and the ACLU, argue that Texas exceeded its constitutional bounds in enacting S.B. 4, and uphold the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over immigration laws and law enforcement. The Supreme Court decision Arizona vs. United States (2012) supports this postulation. This case, based on a state law in Arizona which overstepped the federal regulations that were in place at the time, maintained that federal and state regulations should not in this extreme of a way, ruling in favor of the United States. The plaintiffs currently maintain that because S.B. 4s actions are much more restrictive than Arizonas, S.B. 4 must be unconstitutional on the grounds of precedent.

Current concerns about the enactment of S.B. 4 include the risk of racial profiling, state judges ineptitude for handling immigration cases, and the effects on the relationship between the United States and Mexico. Opponents of the law state that the allowance of state and local police to question the immigration status of an individual for any reason is likely to lead to the specific targeting of minorities, specifically Hispanic people. There is also a concern about state and local judges' inexperience in immigration law, ex little to no training, as they would now be making decisions regarding an individual's possible deportation. Furthermore, Mexico has been in opposition to the law since its introduction. Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has referred to SB4 as a breach of international law, and the Mexican government criticized the bill as “inhumane,” declaring that it will not accept immigrants or anyone seeking refuge who have been deported by Texas.

As arguments are still being held between Texas and the plaintiffs, the future of immigration law remains unclear, and the multiple stays and injunctions issued point to the complexity of its application. However, it is important to note that the implementation of S.B. 4 could have drastic consequences on the relationship of federal and state governments, essentially giving state governments the highest power when it comes to immigration decisions. By giving states ultimate power over the federal government in regard to immigration an already complex system would become wildly more disorganized. The implications of S.B 4 reach far beyond its own implementation, causing concern for future precedent for state governments to control immigration. In a time where red border states such as Florida are becoming increasingly alienated from the federal government's immigration decisions, state power over immigration complicates and further divides an increasingly partisan country. S.B. 4, with its dramatic back-and-forth in the courts over the last month has also proven the disorganization of cross court decisions and stressed concerns over the Supreme Court's ability to organize and regulate internally. In a time where favorable public perception holds growing significance for the perceived reliability and efficacy of the Supreme Court and doubts about its functionality are on the rise, instances of failure like these only serve to intensify public discussions regarding its effectiveness.