In a legal setback for Texas, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has ruled against Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), a controversial 2023 law that would have made illegal entry into the United States a state-level crime. In a 2-1 decision issued this week, the court affirmed a lower court’s injunction blocking the law from taking effect, citing both constitutional concerns and potential international fallout.
Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, writing for the majority, stated that SB 4 intrudes upon federal jurisdiction over immigration matters, calling the law an overreach that disregards the complexities of federal immigration enforcement.
“There are ‘significant complexities’ in determining an alien’s immigration status. SB 4 runs roughshod over them,” Richman wrote. She also warned that the law “would cause international friction,” potentially putting the United States at odds with its treaty obligations and diplomatic commitments.
The ruling marks yet another legal roadblock for SB 4, which has faced fierce resistance in courts since its passage. Initially approved during a fourth special legislative session in 2023 after stalling earlier in the year, SB 4 sought to create a state-level criminal offense for individuals crossing into Texas illegally from a foreign nation. It also empowered state judges to order deportations, a power traditionally reserved for federal immigration courts.
Federal vs. State Power
At the core of the ruling is a fundamental legal question: Who controls immigration enforcement in the United States — the federal government or individual states?
Historically, immigration law has been under federal authority. In siding with that precedent, the court’s decision reinforces the idea that states cannot craft their own enforcement mechanisms that parallel — or conflict with — federal immigration law.
Judge Andrew Oldham, the lone dissenter and a former legal advisor to Texas Governor Greg Abbott, offered a strongly worded rebuttal. He accused the majority of stripping Texas of its right to defend its borders and ignoring legal standards.
“The majority usurps the State of Texas’s sovereign right to police its border and to battle illegal immigration,” Oldham wrote. “It is a sad day for Texas and for our court.”
Oldham also criticized the ruling as inconsistent with legal doctrine, arguing that it undermines long-standing principles about judicial review and the role of preliminary injunctions. “If we really believe in neutral principles,” he stated, “those principles must be, well, neutral.”
Political and Legal Fallout
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton swiftly condemned the decision and vowed to appeal. In a statement, he called the ruling “blatantly wrong” and praised Oldham’s dissent as “correct.” Paxton has positioned himself as a staunch defender of SB 4 and broader state-led immigration enforcement, despite federal pushback.
The legal fight over SB 4 reached the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year, which chose not to intervene, allowing the injunction to stand and signaling deference to the lower courts while broader arguments played out.
Interestingly, the U.S. Department of Justice, which initially challenged SB 4, withdrew as the lead plaintiff in March. While the DOJ has not publicly commented on the latest ruling, the case continued through a coalition of civil rights organizations and immigrant advocacy groups.
Implications Moving Forward
The 5th Circuit's decision has broad implications for immigration law and the ongoing debate over the role of states in border enforcement. It reinforces the principle that immigration is a matter for the federal government — not a patchwork of state legislatures.
Supporters of SB 4, including Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton, argue the law is necessary due to what they see as federal inaction at the southern border. Critics counter that state-level immigration laws risk chaos, civil rights violations, and international tension.
