The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to make a decision on the constitutionality of Texas’ controversial border security law, which has been a top priority for Republicans. The decision could be announced as early as Monday.
The Supreme Court’s decision on SB 4, a comprehensive border security law in Texas, is expected to be announced by Monday, according to KEYE News.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of the United States extended the halt on the implementation of Senate Bill 4. While there is a chance that they might issue another order to further delay the law, SB 4 is currently scheduled to go into effect on Monday at 4 p.m. CST.
Texas law enforcement officers would be granted the power to detain undocumented migrants solely based on their immigration status, a responsibility that has traditionally belonged to the federal government.
Republicans have lauded the law as a response to what they perceive as the Biden administration’s inability to effectively tackle immigration and border security. Democrats argue that the law will lead to racial profiling and point out that the Supreme Court has previously supported the federal government’s stance on immigration policy.
I think it kind of goes back to what Judge Ezra said at the hearing on S.B. 4 a few weeks ago is that we are not a Confederate state, we are the United States,” said Kristin Etter, director of policy and legal services with the Texas Immigration Law Council. “So, when you are a part of the United States, there are certain federal laws that states have to follow.”
In January, the Supreme Court made a significant ruling in favor of the Biden administration in a case involving Texas. The court sided with the federal government, granting them the authority to remove the razor wire that was installed as part of Governor Greg Abbott’s Operation Lone Star initiative. This decision sheds light on the court’s potential stance in future cases.
In a surprising turn of events, the court made another decision that may appear unrelated at first glance. Recently, the court unanimously rejected the attempts of several states to prevent former President Donald Trump from being listed on the ballots for the upcoming November elections.
According to Etter, in the case of Trump, it is necessary to adhere to federal election law. It is not acceptable to have different states implementing their own procedures and disregarding federal election law. Similarly, when it comes to immigration, a uniform immigration law is crucial. The creation and enforcement of individual state immigration laws, as seen in Senate Bill 4, goes against the idea of a consistent approach.
According to Robert Stein, a political science professor at Rice University, the court is aware of the significance of this decision on multiple levels and is not in a hurry to make a ruling. He believes that the court is intentionally taking its time to ensure that the decision is not only correct but also unified, going beyond a simple majority. This approach was evident in the recent Colorado decision, where the court unanimously ruled to bar President Trump from being on the ballot.
