The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News, your source for engaging and informative Texas news. Our publication focuses on delivering accurate and impactful stories that matter to you, with a primary emphasis on South Texas, including Hays, Bexar, Nueces, Webb, Cameron, and Hidalgo counties. Stay informed about pressing issues and gain a deeper understanding of your government. With a commitment to transparency and accountability, trust us to provide reliable information that holds those in power accountable.
The US Supreme Court lifted the stay on Texas S.B. 4 Immigration Law, allowing immediate enforcement. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson dissented, citing potential chaos and conflict with federal authority. Justice Kagan also dissented, highlighting the historical federal jurisdiction over immigration. Both dissents urged caution and emphasized the need to maintain the status quo.
US Supreme Court Lifts Stay on Texas S.B. 4 Immigration Law
In a recent decision issued on March 19, 2024, the United States Supreme Court denied the applications to vacate stay presented to JUSTICE ALITO in the cases of United States v. Texas, ET AL. and Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, ET AL. v. Steven McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Public Safety, ET AL. The orders previously entered by JUSTICE ALITO were vacated. JUSTICE BARRETT, in concurrence with JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, elaborated on the denial of applications to vacate stay, emphasizing the procedural posture of the case, particularly the temporary administrative stay issued by the Fifth Circuit.
The decision highlighted the unusual procedural posture of the case, with the Fifth Circuit having issued a temporary administrative stay and deferring the stay motion to a merits panel. This move raised the question of a stay pending appeal, which necessitates the application of a four-factor test, including an assessment of certworthiness as per Nken v. Holder. Despite the administrative nature of the stay, it was underscored that it does not necessarily reflect the court’s consideration of the merits of the stay application, but rather serves to freeze legal proceedings until the court can rule on a party’s request for expedited relief.
Additionally, the article delved into the purpose of an administrative stay, highlighting its role in minimizing harm while an appellate court deliberates, offering a temporary solution as a flexible, short-term tool. The decision emphasized that the Fifth Circuit must be the first mover in applying the Nken factors and deciding the motion for a stay pending appeal, especially given the progression of merits briefing on Texas’s challenge to the District Court’s injunction of S. B. 4.
In conclusion, it was noted that if a decision does not issue promptly, the applicants may return to the Supreme Court. The detailed analysis provided insight into the complex procedural aspects of the cases and the considerations involved in the decision-making process.
Dissenting Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
In the dissenting opinion to the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court regarding United States v. Texas, ET AL. and Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, ET AL. v. Steven McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Public Safety, ET AL., Justices Sotomayor and Jackson present a compelling argument against the denial of applications to vacate stay.
The dissent highlights the potential chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement that may be provoked by Texas’s law, which directly impacts the entry and removal of noncitizens and instructs state courts to disregard ongoing federal immigration proceedings. This action disrupts the long-established federal-state balance of power and conflicts with the exclusive authority held by the National Government over noncitizen entry and removal. Furthermore, the dissent emphasizes the significant disruptions and adverse impact that this law would have on foreign relations, protection of individuals fleeing persecution, federal enforcement efforts, and the reporting of abuse or trafficking by noncitizens.
The dissent criticizes the Court’s approach in allowing Texas to immediately enforce a law that is likely unconstitutional, as concluded by the District Court. Specifically, it questions the lack of reasoned analysis by the Court of Appeals in issuing an administrative stay that alters the status quo, ultimately leading to chaos and disruption. The dissent asserts that the Fifth Circuit’s administrative stay upended the existing balance of federal and state power in immigration enforcement and extended the disruption indefinitely, which is viewed as an abuse of discretion.
Moreover, the dissent argues that the potential consequences of Texas’s law, such as disrupting foreign relations, impeding federal efforts to protect individuals, undermining security monitoring, and imposing criminal liability on noncitizens, should have been carefully considered and weighed before allowing the law to take effect. The dissent highlights the urgency and significance of maintaining the status quo to prevent substantial disruption and potential constitutional conflicts.
In conclusion, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson’s dissent emphasizes the need for cautious and reasoned consideration of the implications of Texas’s law on the federal-state balance of power and the lives of noncitizens. They contend that the Court’s decision to permit the law’s enforcement without thorough analysis may have far-reaching and detrimental effects, and advocate for maintaining the status quo to prevent immediate chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement.
Dissenting Opinion by Justice Kagan
In her dissenting opinion from the denial of applications to vacate the stay, JUSTICE KAGAN emphasizes her disagreement with the Court’s decision. She expresses her belief that the applicants meet the four-factor test outlined in Nken v. Holder, indicating the appropriateness of a stay pending appeal. While acknowledging that her views on the merits are preliminary at this stage, she underscores the longstanding perception of immigration, especially the entry and removal of noncitizens, as being within the purview of the Federal Government. Drawing on precedents, she highlights the historical understanding of the federal authority in matters of immigration.
JUSTICE KAGAN asserts her opposition to allowing Texas Senate Bill 4 to take effect, aligning with the established understanding of federal jurisdiction in immigration affairs. She questions the Fifth Circuit’s use of an administrative stay instead of a stay pending appeal, emphasizing that the duration and lack of reasoned decision-making in imposing such a stay should not override the preservation of well-established immigration laws. She underlines the significance of respecting long-settled immigration law, conveying her dissent through a clear and principled argument.
The full text of the Supreme Court decision can be accessed for further reference.
Disclaimer
The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented.
Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.
A Couple of Our Other Reads
You may be interested in our publishing on two State Board of Pharmacy officers resigning to avoid termination.
Or you may find our publishing about a TABC officer resigning to avoid termination, of interest.
Follow Us on Social Media
If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.
FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News