Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

News

Federal Court Gives Texas Huge Win to Help Fight Illegal Immigration

Texas has won a legal skirmish in its efforts to make it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

On Saturday, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order countermanding a U.S. District Court judge’s decision that issued a preliminary injunction to block a Texas law allowing state authorities to arrest illegal immigrants.

The order said that the stay on the lower court’s order will not go into effect for seven days, allowing the federal government the chance to appeal the ruling.

The only place left to appeal is to the U.S. Supreme Court. Without an appeal, the law would take effect on March 9.

SB 4 creates the Class B misdemeanor of crossing the border illegally. Offenders can be jailed for up to six months. Repeat offenders could be charged with a felony and spend between two to 20 years behind bars, according to the Texas Tribune.

Under the law, state courts must order convicted illegal immigrants to leave the state, although charges would be dropped if an illegal immigrant leaves voluntarily.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott posted his reaction on X.

“Federal appeals court allows Texas immigration law to take effect. Law enforcement officers in Texas are now authorized to arrest & jail any illegal immigrants crossing the border,” he wrote.

Last week, U.S. District Judge David Ezra had said the law could not take effect even as legal challenges went on because the Biden administration, which opposes the law, was likely to win the court battle over the law, according to Reuters.

Ezra said a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision on an immigrant law provided a precedent to reject the Texas law.

Ezra wrote, “If allowed to proceed, SB 4 could open the door to each state passing its own version of immigration laws,” according to CNN.

Abbott launched the appeal, saying, “We will not back down in our fight to protect our state — and our nation — from President Biden’s border crisis.”

Republican state Rep. David Spiller, who sponsored SB4 in the state House, applauded the ruling, according to the Texas Scorecard.

“In my opinion, the preliminary injunction should not have been granted because the DOJ failed to prove that they were likely to succeed on the merits, and that the implementation of SB4 would have inflicted irreparable harm to the United States — both requisite steps for the issuance of a temporary injunction,” he said.

“I believe SB4 is completely constitutional because it is not in conflict with the precedent set in the Arizona v. United States case, it’s not preempted by existing federal immigration law, it’s not in conflict with existing federal immigration law, and Texas has the absolute constitutional right, authority and ability to protect and secure its borders and its sovereignty,” he said.

READ 21 COMMENTS
  • vickie says:

    YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS…………….OKAY I WONDER IF HE KNOWS THAT BIDEN WAS HAVING ILLEGALS FLOWN INTO AMERICA….THAT IS JUST NOW OCMING OUT IN THE NEWS AND MANY PEOPLE HAVE READ THIS AND THEY REALLY DONT LIKE IT….

  • Ram3500 says:

    It should never have gone to a court, it’s in the constitution to protect at all cost! Illegal is illegal period! We as citizens can get a ticket for jaywalking but illegals can cross a border and live off our taxes. Anybody that votes demacrap is nothing less than CRAP.

  • Scurvydog says:

    Every state in the union ought to have the sovereignty to protect itself from illegal immigration. As a matter of fact, law suits ought to be filed against “Sanctuary City” status! If a state law is in conflict with federal law, then the state law is unconstitutional…no different that legalized marijuana law. So why do states pass unconstitutional law, and why does the federal government allow it? Money.

  • Golda Standard says:

    It is important to be able to pre-empt Federal law in the event of an emergency or if the Executive is unable or unavailable to react to an emergency–like Washington DC got nuked or if The POTUS, VP Speaker of the House, are kidnapped or unavailable physically or mentally, to react. The citizens need to be served: the federal government’s first purpose is to represent and to serve the citizens and states. Alliances are the citizens with other countries–taxpayers fund alliances. The USA has the requirement of the Constitution to represent the people of our nation/states. I can’t imagine the Supreme Court telling Texas that in the absence of Federal support enforcing Federal mandates that the states shouldn’t step forward to serve the citizens and our other states.

  • C R H says:

    Fantastic win for Texas and ultimately the USA. Now what to do about the Biden Airlines bring in 320,000 illegals into the country! Those same plane should be refused to land and sent back to their point of origin.

  • TOP STORIES

    News

    A judge in New York granted porn star Stormy Daniels‘s request that a subpoena she received from former President Donald Trump’s attorneys be quashed,...

    News

    Rep. Donald Payne Jr. (D-N.J.) died on Wednesday after what his office described as a “cardiac episode” that left him hospitalized and absent from...

    News

    Russian hackers claiming to be backed by the Kremlin are believed to have remotely accessed a Texas town’s water tower. The suspected hack in...

    News

    A Mind-Blowing flying car has made history after conducting the world’s first flight with a passenger. Music legend Jean-Michel Jarre, 75, took off in...

    >