The nonsensical migrant battle in the Texas Supreme Court
Following the US Supreme Court’s recent interim ruling on the Texas immigration (“razor wire”) case, there was an immediate uproar and condemnation from various parties.
One news organization reported that “The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Texas to start enforcing a controversial immigration law that allows state officials to detain individuals suspected of entering the country illegally.” This decision was met with criticism from progressive groups who condemned the Court, just days before a group of migrants breached the border in El Paso, Texas.
However, the actual situation of the court conflict is more nuanced. Here’s a quick summary.
In December, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB4 into law, which criminalized illegal migrant entry into the state. The Biden administration and pro-immigration activists challenged this law, arguing that it violated federal immigration enforcement laws which should be handled by the federal government.
After a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction on Feb. 29, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a short-term “administrative stay.” The Supreme Court later directed the 5th Circuit to promptly resolve the case or face further review. Subsequently, the 5th Circuit reinstated the district court’s injunction, putting SB4 on hold.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority in a 6-3 decision, criticized the 5th Circuit for its handling of the case and urged swift resolution. The 5th Circuit responded by reinstating the injunction.
While there is ongoing debate and confusion around the case, it is likely to reach the US Supreme Court for a final resolution. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh’s stance on the matter, particularly with the administration’s lax immigration enforcement, could influence the outcome.
President Biden has the opportunity to resolve the conflict by collaborating with Gov. Abbott under section 1182 authority, validated by the Supreme Court. This could address the burgeoning migrant crisis and alleviate the burden on border states and cities.
While such actions may not align with the far left, they could benefit Biden politically and mitigate the strains of uncontrolled migration on the economy and social fabric. A pivot to address the concerns of moderate voters could prove advantageous for the administration in the upcoming elections.
A possible resolution with Texas may anger some activist factions, but it could appeal to a larger voter base that values sensible immigration policies. Biden has the chance to capitalize on this opportunity and win back support from critical voter segments.
Julian Epstein is the former Democratic Chief Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee.
