Federal Appeals Court Puts Texas’ Controversial Migrant Arrest Law on Hold


In the latest development in the ongoing legal battle over Texas’ controversial migrant arrest law, a federal appeals court has upheld the decision to keep the law on hold, marking another twist in the high-stakes clash between state and federal authority.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling late Tuesday, affirmed the suspension of the law, which grants Texas the power to detain and deport migrants suspected of illegal entry into the United States.

This ruling follows a series of legal maneuvers and hearings, reflecting the deeply entrenched divisions over immigration policy in the state.

The law, championed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott, faced staunch opposition from the Biden administration, which argued that it encroaches upon federal jurisdiction and could spark chaos along the border.

Conversely, Texas officials contended that the law was a necessary response to perceived federal inaction on border security.

Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, dissented from the majority opinion, emphasizing the importance of state sovereignty in shaping immigration policy.

He predicted further legal battles over the law’s merits, highlighting the contentious nature of the issue.

The law briefly went into effect on March 19 after receiving clearance from the U.S. Supreme Court, but subsequent legal challenges led to its suspension pending further review by the 5th Circuit.

This latest ruling prolongs the uncertainty surrounding the law’s enforcement.

Critics of the law argue that it could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling, drawing parallels to past controversial immigration legislation.

Meanwhile, supporters maintain that it provides necessary tools for law enforcement to address border security concerns.

Despite the legal wrangling, no arrests were made under the law during its brief period of enforcement, due partly to logistical challenges faced by local law enforcement agencies.

Sheriffs in border and non-border counties alike expressed concerns about the practicality of implementing the law, citing issues such as limited resources and jurisdictional boundaries.