Lady Justice
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a panel ruling that had affirmed a lower court’s injunction against Texas Senate Bill 4 (88-4).
Passed by the Texas Legislature in 2023, S.B. 4 makes it a crime to enter the state from Mexico without authorization and allows local police to arrest people based on immigration status.
The law also allows state officers to order people removed – a power that has never belonged to state governments.
Previously, a Fifth Circuit panel held that S.B. 4 is unconstitutional, but the full court reached a different conclusion solely on procedural grounds.
On April 24, the court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the challenge, reversing its own three-judge panel decision, which had confirmed standing.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, American Gateways, and El Paso County, arguing that S.B. 4 violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by federal immigration law.
The Fifth Circuit did not reach the constitutional questions at the heart of this case: whether S.B. 4 violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and unconstitutionally strips the federal government of its exclusive authority over immigration enforcement.
“This decision leaves the door open to exactly the kind of state overreach S.B. 4 represents,” said David Donatti, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas. “If it goes into effect, communities and families across Texas will face surveillance, suspicion, and the constant threat that any encounter with law enforcement could upend their lives.”
This case before the Fifth Circuit centered on whether Texas, “exercising its historic, sovereign police powers,” can legislatively protect its citizens from “a surge of illegal aliens in response to an unprecedented border crisis and a declared invasion,” the opinion states.
“Because the Plaintiffs that are challenging the new statute lack standing, we vacate the preliminary injunction without addressing the merits of the preemption claim.”
Case No. 24-50149
