State officials vow to fight court order that restricts SB4
AUSTIN — State officials vowed Thursday to fight a court order that blocked parts of a controversial state immigration law that outlawed sanctuary cities and would have penalized local officials who refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts.
In contrast, immigration advocates and community organizers hailed the ruling from a San Antonio federal court late Wednesday as a major victory for more than 1 million undocumented immigrants in Texas who live in fear of deportation.
DACA might end
Immigrant advocates were relieved by the court decision, but they feared an impending loss on another front as a new round of leaks Thursday suggested President Donald Trump soon will announce the potential end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program that shields immigrants brought to the United States as children from deportation and allows them to work and study here.
Senate Bill 4, one of Gov. Greg Abbott’s key legislative priorities that was set to go into effect Friday, would have punished police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement agencies who prevent their officers from asking about a person’s immigration status during an arrest or detention. It also would have required jail officials to honor all requests from federal agencies to hold an inmate for possible deportation. SB4 also forbids local governments from “adopting, enforcing, or endorsing” policies that materially limit immigration enforcement.
But late Wednesday night, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia wrote that parts of SB4 are likely unconstitutional and granted a preliminary injunction against many of the law’s key provisions.
“This is an astounding defeat for the state’s attempt to conscript local officers into becoming deportation agents,” said Andre Segura, legal director at the ACLU of Texas, who represented several communities and cities in the lawsuit against the state.
Garcia temporarily blocked the state from punishing local officials, saying that infringes on their free speech rights. He also wrote that local officials, including law enforcement, provided “ample” evidence that the law will “erode public trust.”
“The court cannot and does not second guess the Legislature,” Garcia wrote. “However, the State may not exercise its authority in a manner that violates the United States Constitution.”
Abbott said the decision makes Texas communities “less safe,” and said the decision will be appealed “immediately.” Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the San Antonio federal court Thursday to stay its decision while he appeals the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals. His request was turned down.
“Because of this ruling, gang members and dangerous criminals, like those who were released by the Travis County Sheriff, will be set free to prey upon our communities,” Abbott said in a written statement.
Paxton said SB4 was intended to set a “statewide policy of cooperation” with federal immigration authorities. In January, Trump signed an executive order threatening to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, but a federal judge halted the order, saying it was too broad.
“Texas has the sovereign authority and responsibility to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens,” Paxton said. “We’re confident SB4 will ultimately be upheld as constitutional and lawful.”
But immigration advocates and community organizers are confident all the provisions in SB4 will be blocked.
“We know we have a big fight ahead of us, in the court and on the ground,” said Mary Moreno, communications director with the Texas Organizing Project. “In a way, not much has changed for us, except we did get a little breathing room.”
Knowing their rights
The Texas Organizing Project and others, including the ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said their priority is to connect with immigrant communities so people understand their rights.
The court’s ruling allows officers to inquire about someone’s legal status during a lawful arrest or detention. Officers can turn that information over to federal authorities.
But advocates say people can refuse to answer, and an officer cannot make an arrest based on a person’s answer or refusal to provide immigration information.