The legal battle over Texas’ SB 4 immigration law could lead to a Supreme Court review of the 2012 Arizona v. United States case, which limited state involvement in immigration enforcement. The law, which allows state officials to arrest and detain suspected illegal immigrants, is currently on hold as its constitutionality is being determined in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Legal experts believe that this case could potentially change the landscape of immigration law in the United States.
Denise Gilman from the University of Texas School of Law stated that Texas aims to overturn the Arizona precedent with SB 4. The law was initially blocked in February but quickly appealed to the 5th Circuit Court. The Supreme Court briefly allowed enforcement before putting it back on hold. The Arizona case serves as an example of states trying to control immigration policy, with the Supreme Court upholding only the “show me your papers” provision while striking down other parts.
Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the Arizona case reaffirmed federal government authority over immigration policy. Kennedy emphasized the federal government’s power to determine immigration policy and criticized states for pursuing policies that undermine federal law. Texas’ SB 4 contains similar concepts to the ones struck down in the Arizona ruling, emphasizing the conflict between state and federal immigration control.
The dissenting justices from the 2012 Supreme Court decision, Justices Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, are still on the court. Texas’ defense of SB 4 is aligned with Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in 2012, which argued that Arizona was trying to enforce federal immigration law more effectively. The divided 5th Circuit panel is split on the legality of SB 4, with Chief Judge Priscilla Richman believing that Congress occupies the field of immigration enforcement.
Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham, a former Alito clerk, dissented against the majority opinion, advocating for Texas to enforce SB 4 during the legal challenges. Oldham suggests that the Arizona decision allows states to supplement federal immigration laws and that parts of SB 4 may still be upheld. However, the potential implications of a Supreme Court reevaluation of the Arizona case are uncertain, with the possibility of states gaining more authority in immigration control being deemed an extreme departure from precedent.
Overall, the legal battle over Texas’ SB 4 immigration law has the potential to challenge the long-established federal government control over immigration policy. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the balance of power between states and the federal government in regulating immigration enforcement. The Supreme Court may be faced with revisiting its 2012 ruling and potentially reshaping the legal landscape of immigration law in the United States.
