Biden administration asks Supreme Court to block Texas immigration law

[Valletta]

What part of "solely vested in the Federal government" do you not understand? (Clearly you are not alone. The Texas legislature and governor has the same problem.)

LOL. You just ignore the legal argument and make a pronouncement. That's what the administration so often does.

 

[Hans Blaster]

LOL. You just ignore the legal argument and make a pronouncement. That's what the administration so often does.

Or the judge:

“First,” the judge wrote, “the Supremacy Clause and Supreme Court precedent affirm that states may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government. Second, SB 4 conflicts with key provisions of federal immigration law, to the detriment of the United States’ foreign relations and treaty obligations.”

 

[Valletta]

Or the judge:

States have every right to uphold federal law. We see this same kind of judicial activism with states trying to take Trump off of the ballot.

 

[hislegacy]

How about just enforcing the laws already on the books -

 

[Arcangl86]

States have every right to uphold federal law. As I showed in my example, federal and states do often have laws on the same subject.

They often have laws on the same subject, but there are things that only the Federal government is empowered to legislate on and enforce.

 

[Valletta]

They often have laws on the same subject, but there are things that only the Federal government is empowered to legislate on and enforce.

State and local police have apprehended illegals in the past, it shouldn't change because individuals in the federal government refuse to obey the law.

 

[Arcangl86]

State and local police have apprehended illegals in the past, it shouldn't change because individuals in the federal government refuse to obey the law.

Well then I suggest you take it up with the founders because that's the system they set up.

 

[essentialsaltes]

SB4: Supreme Court again blocks Texas law allowing police to arrest migrants​

In Monday's ruling, the Supreme Court imposed an administrative stay, meaning SB4 cannot be enforced while emergency appeals from the Biden administration and other challengers play out.

Justice Samuel Alito's brief order suggested the court could take additional action. It is the third time the conservative justice has paused SB4.

 

[Valletta]

SB4: Supreme Court again blocks Texas law allowing police to arrest migrants​

In Monday's ruling, the Supreme Court imposed an administrative stay, meaning SB4 cannot be enforced while emergency appeals from the Biden administration and other challengers play out.

Justice Samuel Alito's brief order suggested the court could take additional action. It is the third time the conservative justice has paused SB4.

Allowing officers to arrest "anyone suspected of having crossed the border illegally" is a very broad law. As written it has the potential for misuse. They might have to rewrite it to detain for a specific period instead of arrest. That law also needs to be weighed against the invasion our country is suffering through and the refusal of federal officials to enforce federal law.

 

[BBAS 64]

Yes, He lost another his record is historically bad, he is a kind elderly man that has a bad memory though.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2024-03-19/divided-supreme-court-lifts-stay-on-a-texas-law-giving-police-broad-powers-to-arrest-migrants

 

[essentialsaltes]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/politics/texas-immigration-law-blocked-appeals/index.html

A federal appeals court late Tuesday night put Texas’ controversial immigration law back on hold.

In a brief order, a three-judge panel at the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said it voted 2-1 to wipe away a previous ruling from a different panel that had temporarily put the law, SB 4, into effect.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/politics/texas-immigration-law-blocked-appeals/index.html

A federal appeals court late Tuesday night put Texas’ controversial immigration law back on hold.

In a brief order, a three-judge panel at the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said it voted 2-1 to wipe away a previous ruling from a different panel that had temporarily put the law, SB 4, into effect.

This whole situation is a bit of a convoluted mess, but the Supreme Court's ruling was actually somewhat of a slapdown for the 5th Circuit, even if it technically upheld their stay (which, confusingly, actually allowed the law to be enforced).

The short version is that the 5th Circuit issued an administrative stay on a lower court's injunction against enforcement of SB4. Administrative stays are meant to be used as short-term (usually a few days at most) measures to maintain the status quo while judges review the case - thus, they aren't subject to review by other courts and don't require the judges to write up any sort of justification or reasoning for the stay. The problem is, the 5th Circuit has a history of letting administrative stays run for weeks or even months without issuing a final ruling on the issue (which would require them to explain their reasoning), as they did in this case - the Supreme Court ruling came two weeks after the 5th Circuit had been fully briefed on the merits of the case, with the administrative stay still in effect.

So, while the SC declined to remove the stay, it was primarily on procedural grounds (they don't want to get in the business of reviewing administrative stays) - the opinion that they issued also included a warning to the 5th Circuit to stop the shenanigans with administrative stays, or they would let the case come back and look to review it on the merits. Seems like the 5th Circuit got the message.