Paxton sues to uphold ‘sanctuary’ ban
Attorney general seeks pre-emptive strike on legal challenges to new law
AUSTIN — Looking to get a jump on a promised legal challenge to the state’s tough new anti” sanctuary cities” law, Attorney General Ken Paxton asked a federal judge Monday to declare that the hotly debated measure is constitutional months before it is scheduled to take effect.
Paxton said he filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against several Travis County elected officials to ensure that the law would be implemented without delay Sept. 1.
The pre-emptive move could mean that a single court would determine the constitutionality of Senate Bill 4, potentially allowing the state to avoid another extended and costly legal battle that historically follows high-profile bills passed by the Texas Legislature.
“SB4 is constitutional, lawful and a vital step in securing our borders,” Paxton said in a statement. “SB4 guarantees cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement to protect Texans. Unfortunately, some municipalities and law enforcement agencies are unwilling to cooperate with the federal government and claim that SB4 is unconstitutional.”
Paxton, a first term Republican, filed the complaint in an Austin-based federal court one day after Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed SB4 during a
private event broadcast on his Facebook page. In a video statement before the signing, Abbott said he was confident the law will be upheld in court against the challenge opponents have promised for months.
Paxton’s complaint also mentions the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, as a defendant whose leaders have promised to file a lawsuit against SB4. The group dismissed Paxton’s filing as a premature and ultimately meaningless move.
“This is a frivolous legal action, and filed precipitously and without basis in the law,” said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of MALDEF. “Rather than wait for aggrieved individuals and entities to pursue their many constitutional challenges to SB4, the state bespeaks its own apparent high anxiety about the legality of Abbott’s Folly, SB4, by seeking a preemptive strike through this lawsuit.”
‘Probable cause’
Anticipating arguments from MALDEF in his complaint, Paxton rejected three major criticisms of the bill that the organization has hinted are ripe for a court challenge, including concerns that SB4 grants sweeping new powers to police that allow them to question anyone about their immigration status if they are detained.
On that issue, the state’s complaint contends SB4 does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures because U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers are “supported by probable cause.”
Second, Paxton said SB4 does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to equal protection of the laws because its intent was not to target a specific race or group of people, a claim Democrats vigorously dispute.
“SB4’s requirements that local law enforcement not prevent peace officers from verifying immigration status of a person does not have a discriminatory purpose,” Paxton wrote. “Racial discrimination is not a substantial or motivating factor behind SB4 and Texas law. The historical background of SB4 does not indicate discriminatory intent.”
Finally, the Paxton filing said SB4 does not infringe on the federal government’s responsibility to set immigration law.
The legislation will prohibit local jurisdictions from passing or enforcing ordinances that prohibit police officers from inquiring about a detained person’s immigration status. It also will require police to honor all federal requests to detain people suspected of being in the country illegally until immigration authorities can investigate the person’s status. Sheriffs and police chiefs could face jail time if they refuse to cooperate with federal authorities, forcing them out of their jobs.
In the complaint, Paxton specifically mentioned Travis County officials, including Sheriff Sally Hernandez and Austin Mayor Steve Adler, who Paxton said “engage in patterns and practices of ignoring ICE detainer requests and not cooperating with federal officials.” He cited Hernandez’s policy that the sheriff’s department will cooperate with ICE requests on a case-by-case basis, unless federal authorities present a court order or warrant in a particular case. Otherwise, Travis County officers may not inquire about a person’s immigration status under any circumstance.
“Both in policy and practice, and through various public statements, Travis County, Texas openly rejects even routine cooperations with federal immigration officials,” Paxton wrote. “Texas has no adequate or speedy remedy at law to correct or redress these violations of Texas law. Until SB4 is declared constitutional, defendants will continue with their unlawful policy or practice.”
Mayor ready to fight
Hernandez’s office declined to comment on the lawsuit, but she has become a chief target in recent months for Republican state politicians who want to force local law enforcement leaders, especially in Democraticleaning big cities, to honor every federal immigration request.
Adler, the Austin mayor, said he welcomed the legal fight ahead because it moved the issue from the Republican-dominated state legislature to an impartial federal court.
“For five months, we’ve been on the sidelines while the legislature has treated Austin’s safety like a political football. I’m glad the action is moving to court where it’s not about politics, it’s about the law,” Adler said. “A judge will decide whether the United States of America or Texas determines federal immigration policy and whether local police and prosecutors have the discretion to keep their communities safe.”