WASHINGTON — A lawyer representing Texas told a federal appeals court that the state might have gone “too far” in enacting a law that permits state officials to essentially expel immigrants, during oral arguments on Wednesday in the federal government's effort to stop the law.
The state has requested the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to overturn a lower court ruling that determined the entire law, called S.B.4, likely violated the Constitution in a lawsuit brought by the Biden administration and civil rights groups. Last month, a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit voted 2-1 to keep the state law on hold while the appeal proceeds.
Aaron Nielson, the Texas attorney presenting the state's case on Wednesday, told the same three-judge panel that “perhaps Texas took things too far” in terms of federal authority over immigration when passing the law, but argued that the lower court went too far by halting the entire law before it could be put into effect.
Nielson stated that Texas has been dealing with a significant border crisis and has intensified its efforts due to the lack of action from Congress to provide adequate resources.
Chief Judge Priscilla Richman highlighted that by suing to halt the law, the federal government has essentially refused the assistance.
“What did they say? They’re not saying yes, they’re saying no,” Richman remarked. “If it were just money, it seems like they'd welcome your help, but they’re not.”
The law criminalizes crossing from Mexico to Texas illegally, and state courts could order the removal of immigrants even if they have pending asylum claims, as stated by the Biden administration in court documents.
Nielson disputed this during Wednesday’s oral arguments, asserting that the lower court had misrepresented the extent of the removal provision. The law requires state officials to hand immigrants over to federal authorities at ports of entry, allowing legal rights such as asylum claims to be considered.
Justice Department lawyer Daniel Tenny urged the judges to keep the law on hold, stating that nothing had changed since a district judge found the law likely violated the Constitution by intruding on federal authority over immigration.
Tenny mentioned that the law could disrupt individual immigration cases, foreign relations, and even raise concerns about Americans being treated similarly abroad.
The three-judge panel could render a decision at any time regarding whether the district court judge was correct in blocking the implementation of the law.
The case is one of several legal battles between Texas and the federal government regarding immigration policy, including Texas' use of concertina wire at the Eagle Pass crossing.
