Federal court hearing to decide whether controversial immigration law can take effect in March

Texas' controversial state immigration-enforcement bill heads to federal court in Austin on Thursday morning.

Senate bill 4 will allow law enforcement to arrest and remove migrants believed to have entered the state illegally.

Two lawsuits, including one by the U.S. government, are trying to stop the bill from officially becoming law in three weeks.

It essentially comes down to the United States versus the state of Texas – the federal hearing is set to begin at 9 a.m.

SB4 was passed by Texas lawmakers late last year during their fourth special session. It will allow state and local law enforcement to arrest people they suspect entered Texas illegally. Law enforcement can jail and prosecute migrants from any country and state judges would also be authorized to order a migrant to return to Mexico, regardless of their nationality and not having any ties there.

Just days after Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the bill into law, a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project on behalf of El Paso-based Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, American Gateways, and El Paso County.

A motion for preliminary injunction followed in January 2024. Then the Department of Justice filed its own lawsuit after Gov. Abbott refused its request to back down from allowing SB4 to proceed to law.

The lawsuit filed by the advocacy groups was subsequently consolidated with the DOJ lawsuit, United States of America v. Texas.

The hearing on Thursday will cover both legal challenges.

SB 4 is supposed to take effect March 5. On Thursday, the court could rule to grant a preliminary injunction on the law while these lawsuits are pending. Local immigration attorneys are keeping a watchful eye.

“We are waiting to hear what this court has to say and the analysis presented to determine whether or not this law is unconstitutional based on previous precedent that we have from the Supreme Court,” said attorney Haim Vasquez. "These nonprofit organizations are supporting this cause based on immigrant rights and not only that but whether or not the state has the right to remove people from the United States. And that's the question that the federal court has to answer.”

The DOJ is calling SB 4 unconstitutional and that it attempts to override federal law, which has jurisdiction over immigration policy. Other critics also say it leaves the door wide open for racial profiling and separating families.

Vasquez is also expressing concerns about how law enforcement can enforce this.

"The way that this law is written creates a lot of issues. And one of them is that the police officer, the law enforcement officer has to have evidence that the person has crossed the border, undocumented,” he said. “That could be troublesome for a police officer far from the border. How can you determine that? Do you stop somebody just because they look a certain way and you start asking them questions? Those are issues that this law is going to present."

Vasquez said it is still unknown exactly how the law will be applied. Gov. Abbott has said in the past that SB4 is written in a way that it would not be subject to a lawsuit.

“By itself, it creates issues that not only can prevent the implementation of the law but can open for discrimination and potential lawsuits against the state government,” he said. “For families, it is important that they educate themselves and they don't panic yet. We don't know yet what's going to happen. First, my recommendation is that they seek legal advice. They can understand whether or not this law applies to them and therefore they can see what they need to do to be protected.”

This is just one of the numerous legal fights that Gov. Abbott has been locked into with the Biden administration over claims that Abbott is overstepping his bounds into federal immigration territory, such as the razor wire and floating barriers on the border.

As for the fight over SB 4, the Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases that states have a limited scope when it comes to immigration enforcement.