Texas’ immigration law, known as SB4, was defended by an attorney before a federal appeals court, acknowledging that state legislators may have gone “too far” in passing the controversial law. The law criminalizes illegal entry into Texas and allows state judges to order immigrants to be deported, pushing the boundaries of what is permitted based on Supreme Court precedent. Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson admitted that perhaps the state had crossed a line with this law.
The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which had already paused the law from taking effect while further examining its legality, heard arguments from Nielson, who tried to downplay the sweeping impact of the law and insisted that it did not interfere with federal immigration authority. Nielson explained that migrants subject to state court deportation orders would be turned over to federal immigration authorities at border ports, who would then decide whether they would be released while awaiting further proceedings within the United States.
During the hearing, Chief Circuit Judge Priscilla Richman, a conservative judge who played a key role in temporarily pausing the law in a 2-1 panel decision, expressed skepticism about Nielson’s efforts to limit the law’s scope. She questioned the effectiveness of the statute and its accomplishments. The Justice Department, which brought one of the lawsuits challenging the Texas statute, urged the appeals court not to deviate from its previous ruling that blocked the law, emphasizing that there was no new information presented that warranted a change in their analysis.
Overall, the arguments presented before the federal appeals court highlighted the contentious nature of Texas’ immigration law, SB4. The attorney defending the law acknowledged the possibility of Texas going “too far” in passing the legislation, while also attempting to downplay its significance and impact on federal immigration authority. Chief Circuit Judge Priscilla Richman expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the law and questioned its accomplishments, signaling a potential challenge to the law’s future implementation. The Justice Department urged the court to maintain its previous ruling blocking the law, emphasizing the importance of consistency in legal analysis.
