Texas Thinks The Supreme Court Will Let It Have Its Own Immigration Regime

This is your TPM evening briefing.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt speak to reporters in front of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on April 26, 2022. - The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments ... Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt speak to reporters in front of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on April 26, 2022. - The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in the Biden v. Texas case, which will determine if the Biden administration must continue to enforce a Trump-era program known as the remain in Mexico policy. The court is considering whether President Joe Biden can end a controversial Trump-era border policy that denies asylum-seekers entry to the US while their case is reviewed. (Photo by Stefani Reynolds / AFP) (Photo by STEFANI REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

As of this week, the Biden administration has two blossoming legal disputes with Texas, both of which may end up before a hostile Supreme Court and both of which deal with issues core to federalism in the U.S.

Ultimately, if the High Court chooses to take up one or both issues, the cases could yield new precedent, allowing state law enforcement regimes aimed at apprehending undocumented immigrants — an area previously left to the feds.

As TPM chronicled last year, Texas’ various immigration laws and policies had, in fact, been designed explicitly for the purpose of inviting such a court ruling.

On Tuesday, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to allow Border Patrol agents to cut razor wire that the state had set up along the border as part of Gov. Greg Abbott’s Operation Lone Star. And on Wednesday, the Biden administration sued the state in federal district court over its new immigration law, signed by Abbott last month, that gives local law enforcement the authority to arrest migrants.

Both represent a possible pathway to a longstanding goal of many on the right, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas legislators: Getting the Supreme Court to revisit its decision in Arizona v. U.S., a 2012 ruling in which the Court sided with the Obama administration and struck down part of an Arizona law that made it a criminal offense for non-citizens to be in the state without documentation. The court found that the law violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, and that the federal government has the sole power to enforce immigration law.

Border-state right-wingers have been smarting at the ruling since then, giving life to a series of efforts by both the Texas governor and the state legislature to reopen a settled question. The new Texas law the Biden administration sued over, SB4, is seen by many (and celebrated on the right) as a direct descendent of the Arizona law, SB 1070.

In a Texas state Senate hearing last Spring that TPM’s Josh Kovensky covered, Paxton was explicit about his motivation: “I’ve been saying for two years, we should test U.S. v. Arizona,” he told legislators.

Paxton felt that, as with abortion, the court’s new make-up would inevitably yield a different result.

“We’ve got a different court,” he said at another point in the hearing. “We’ve got the best chance we’ve ever had to overturn that and give the states the ability to protect their citizens.”

The Best Of TPM Today

Trump’s SCOTUS Request Chose To Open A Pandora’s Box That Could Have Stayed Shut

The 5th Circuit Will Not Have The Last Word On Abortion In Emergency Rooms

Trump Continues To Test The Constitution’s Limits

Yesterday’s Most-Read Story

The New Argument That Might Save Trump’s March Trial Date

What We Are Reading

Leonard Leo, architect of conservative Supreme Court, takes on wider culture — National Catholic Reporter

My Unraveling: I had my health. I had a job. And then, abruptly, I didn’t. — New York Magazine

Chief Justice John Roberts’ AI Report Reads Like an Old Robot Wrote It — Daily Beast

The Presidential Race at the Dawn of a New Year — Sabato’s Crystal Ball

Latest Where Things Stand

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for jtx jtx says:

    And along with it the cost will go directly to TX.

  2. Avatar for caltg caltg says:

    Since when do states’ rights take precedence over our national Constitution and Federal laws? Certainly not since the Civil War and the 14th Amendment.

  3. Avatar for jtx jtx says:

    This Court is not a normal Court.

  4. Avatar for daled daled says:

    Which will then sue to force reimbursement because “The Federal Government abandoned their responsibility to protect the border and we (Texas) would not have had this expense otherwise.”

  5. But you go to court with the judges you have, not the ones you wish you had. That’s the problem here.

    The Right has been trying to wrest control of the narrative in the Federal government for decades. They now have all the pieces in place. A couple of well-placed decisions in their favor and the pendulum will have completed its swing from Liberalism to Conservatism. It could be another 30, 40 or 50 years before it swings back again.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

41 more replies


Avatar for discobot Avatar for daled Avatar for robg Avatar for jackson_frisell Avatar for tigersharktoo Avatar for the_rebis Avatar for becca656 Avatar for drriddle Avatar for ralph_vonholst Avatar for dangoodbar Avatar for commanderogg Avatar for darrtown Avatar for benthere Avatar for isakindamagic Avatar for jtx Avatar for caltg Avatar for susanintheoc Avatar for jills Avatar for socalista Avatar for bcgister Avatar for carydweller Avatar for TexMarlowe Avatar for IBecameACitizenforthis Avatar for timbomov

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: