With the Supreme Court’s latest ruling, the conservative majority delivered a sharp blow to the Biden administration on immigration policy. The decision allows, at least temporarily, the aggressive Texas law known as SB4 to be enforced, granting state authorities power to arrest and deport non-citizens who enter the state illegally. Until now, those powers rested solely with the federal government.
The move is not a final verdict. The justices simply cleared the way for SB4 to operate while the case returns to a lower court that previously blocked it, warning that the law could be unconstitutional and awaiting further appeals.
SB4 imposes penalties of up to six months in jail for illegal entries from Mexico into Texas and contemplates criminal charges for repeat entrants. It also empowers state judges to order deportations to Mexico, potentially without the neighbor country’s consent, and authorizes local law enforcement officers to enforce these orders.
Disagreement from the progressive wing
The three progressive judges on the court dissented. In an opinion joined by two of them, they warned that the court’s decision invites more chaos and crises in how immigration rules are applied.
“Texas passed a statute that directly regulates entry and expulsion of non-citizens and directs state courts to ignore ongoing federal immigration procedures,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “The law radically shifts the balance of federal and state power that has stood for more than a century.”
Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also argued that the Texas law would disrupt sensitive international relations, harm people fleeing persecution, hinder federal law enforcement efforts, undermine agencies’ ability to detect and monitor imminent security threats, and discourage non-citizens from reporting abuses or trafficking.
A clash with the Biden administration
The conservative majority’s stance on SB4 is a win for Abbott, who has openly challenged the federal government since Biden took office and has sought to wrest control of immigration policy from Washington. Abbott argues that Texas must defend itself against what he calls an invasion.
To back up that position, Texas launched Operation Lone Star, a sprawling effort budgeting around $11 billion, deploying the National Guard within the state, moving migrants to cities led by Democrats, and using barriers such as riverbank blades, which a court later required him to remove. Concertina wire was also employed, although federal authorities later removed or blocked some of these measures when they impeded other legal duties.
Texas has defended its stance before the Supreme Court by invoking the war clause of the Constitution, which says states may engage in war only in response to an invasion or imminent threat. The Biden administration’s counsel argued that a rise in illegal immigration does not constitute an invasion under that clause.
A campaign issue and broader political theater
With border crossings reaching historic levels, immigration has become a central topic in American politics. Republicans, who hold a majority in the House, began impeachment proceedings against the interior secretary over perceived mismanagement of border policy.
The immigration debate also dominates the 2024 presidential race. Abbott has received strong endorsements from Donald Trump, who, during a recent Texas visit, suggested the governor should be considered as a potential vice presidential candidate. In a manner reminiscent of 2016, Trump has ramped up his rhetoric on immigration, labeling migrants as criminals and not people at times during recent campaign events.
Historical reminders echo a familiar arc
Looking back, the Supreme Court previously struck down parts of Arizona’s hard-edged immigration law in 2012. At that time, only two of today’s justices were on the bench, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor among the majority. That moment serves as a reminder of how immigration policy and federal-state power have long been a flashpoint in American governance, and how court interpretations can pivot with a changing political landscape.