The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States paused the entry into force of Texas’s immigration law on Tuesday night after the Supreme Court had lifted its stay on the measure. The federal ruling followed a late decision by the high court that allowed the law to take effect temporarily while the appeals court weighed its legality. A three-judge panel dissolved a prior ruling that had permitted implementation after the Supreme Court’s move and ultimately blocked the state statute, which treated an irregular cross from Mexico into Texas as a crime. The sequence added to a back-and-forth between the Supreme Court and the federal court in New Orleans, with the Supreme Court extending a stay only to have it lifted again as the Fifth Circuit prepares to hear arguments on the law. The future of this controversial statute remains uncertain.
The Biden administration and migrant rights groups criticized the law as unconstitutional. Mexico likewise condemned the measure. Texas Governor Greg Abbott had promoted the policy, intended to go into effect on March 5, but a federal judge blocked it, prompting the state to appeal. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton urged the case to the Fifth Circuit, which supported the challenge, before the matter went back to the Supreme Court for further action. The law defines as a misdemeanor any foreign national who enters or tries to enter the state illegally from a foreign country, with a potential felony penalty of up to 20 years in prison for repeat offenses. It also permits state courts to order expulsions without a formal legal process and grants police the discretion to arrest individuals suspected of illegal entry and expel them to Mexico rather than detaining them for federal processing. The changes would empower police to arrest and remove suspected migrants under a broad interpretation of immigration enforcement at the state level, raising questions about federal supremacy in immigration policy.
Observers note that the shift in court rulings highlights the persistent tension between state efforts to manage immigration and federal authority. The initial push in Texas aimed to deter irregular entry by expanding the authority of local law enforcement and expediting removal. Critics warn that the policy could lead to racial profiling, undermine due process, and strain relations with neighboring countries. Supporters argue that the policy is a lawful exercise of state power to address what they describe as a border crisis and to deter unlawful entry while awaiting federal reform. The case has drawn responses from various interest groups, including advocacy organizations, legal scholars, and government officials on both sides of the aisle, each citing constitutional principles and public safety concerns. Substantive questions loom about how such a law would operate in practice, how it would intersect with federal immigration statutes, and whether the courts will ultimately permit or strike down provisions that change the consequences of crossing the border irregularly. In the coming days, legal analysts expect further developments as the Fifth Circuit discusses technical challenges to implementation and considers the legality of the expedited removal mechanisms envisioned by the Texas measure. Attribution: reporting from multiple outlets covering court actions and government responses. The evolving legal landscape keeps the law in limbo, with the public awaiting additional court rulings and potential legislative responses that could recalibrate immigration enforcement at the state level.