The Supreme Court of the United States denied Biden’s request for blocking S.B. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the Biden administration’s request to block S.B.

The Supreme Court gave Texas the green light to implement a new law that allows police to detain and arrest people who illegally cross the border into Mexico. However, a federal appeals Court reinstated the injunction blocking its implementation.

The Texas law, which was to take effect on March 5, was put on hold by the high courts for two weeks as the justices considered the emergency requests of the Biden administration and immigration rights groups. They wanted to freeze the statute while legal challenges were pending, arguing that it intruded on federal authority regarding immigration.

The Supreme Court rejected the request to suspend the law Tuesday afternoon despite the dissension of three liberal justices. Late Tuesday night, a panel of 5th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to restore a preliminary injunction granted by a district judge preventing Texas officials enforcing this statute.

The two actions were taken just hours before Wednesday’s scheduled videoconference hearing of the appeals court.

The order was signed by Chief Judge Priscilla Richardman, a Bush appointee, and Judge Irma RAMIRES, a Biden nominee, Tuesday night. They restored the injunction that had been issued against the law. Richman and Ramirez didn’t explain their reasoning.

Judge Andrew Oldham was appointed by President Donald Trump. He dissented. Oldham said that to preserve the “status-quo” of the case, it was necessary to allow the law go into effect. The injunction altered the normal legislative processes.

The actions of neither court amounted to an absolute ruling on the constitutionality of the law. The law may be restored by Wednesday, as Texas officials have requested. It also seems likely that the issue will return to Supreme Court in the near future.

The unexpected late-night decision of the appeals court came after Texas officials celebrated the Supreme Court ruling the day before.

In a message to X (formerly Twitter), Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose role has been crucial in Texas’ battles against the federal government on immigration, hailed the Supreme Court order as a “huge victory”.

Paxton stated, “It is always my honor to defend Texas, its sovereignty and lead us to victory at court.”

The high court’s decision on Tuesday was a blow to the Biden administration. However, there are signs that a majority could be convinced in the near term to overturn the law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that they would re-examine the issue after the 5th Circuit issued a formal decision about whether the law could remain in place.

Senate Bill 4 was signed into law by Republican Governor. Greg Abbott signed a law in December that allows law enforcement officers to arrest migrants for a first-time misdemeanor if they suspect them of crossing the border without permission. The court could order migrants to return to Mexico, or prosecute them if they refused.

The Associated Press reported that Mexico’s government stated Tuesday it would “under no circumstances” accept any return of migrants from Texas.

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the decision of the appeals court to let the law take effect “unreasonable.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also joined the dissent. Sotomayor claimed that the Texas law would lead to “further confusion and crisis at border.”

Sotomayor wrote: “The Court gives the green light to a bill that will upset the long-standing federal-state power balance and cause chaos, even though the only court that examined the law found it to be likely unconstitutional.”

Sotomayor was the senior liberal justice who also attacked the 5th Circuit, accusing it of stalling sensitive cases. She suggested that the conservative appeals courts might be trying to “evade an effective review” from the Supreme Court.

Sotomayor complained that the Fifth Circuit has recently developed a troubling practice of allowing ‘administrative stays’ to remain in place for several weeks, if not even months.

Kagan, in a separate letter, said that the Texas law interfered with “matters thought to be the exclusive province of the Federal Government”. She did not see any reason to wait until the appeals court took further action.

Barrett’s opinion indicated that the complaints of the liberals had some merit, but concluded that it was “premature for the Supreme Court” to intervene now.

The showdown in court over the Texas law is occurring as the Biden Administration and Texas continue to clash about border policy, and the influx migrants at the border have sparked a nationwide controversy.

Immigration advocacy groups and the federal government argue that state law is in conflict with federal immigration policy, and that it violates the Constitutional supremacy clause which states that federal laws take precedence over state laws.

The Biden administration issued a statement before the appeals court took action Tuesday night. They said they “fundamentally disagreed” with the Supreme Court’s order.

“S.B. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that S.B. 4 was just another example of Republican officials politizing the border and blocking real solutions. We remained focused on delivering significant policy changes and the resources we need to protect the border. That is why we continue calling on Congressional Republicans pass the bipartisan agreement on border security, the toughest border reforms for decades.

In court documents, advocates including the ACLU argued that the Texas statute “would harm Black and Brown persons regardless of their immigration status”, because of the wave law enforcement actions the new legislation is likely to unleash.

Families and individuals in Texas will suffer grave harm as soon as S.B. As soon as S.B.

After the ruling by the Texas Supreme Court on Tuesday, ACLU Texas responded to social media with “We will not back down until this anti-immigrant, extreme law is overturned for good.”

Texas officials claimed in court documents that their state is the “first line of defense” against transnational crime and has had to deal with deadly consequences due to the federal government’s unwillingness or inability to secure the border.

The Constitution gives Texas the right to defend itself against violent transnational criminals.