Recent developments indicate that Texas now has the authority to apprehend individuals who it suspects to be immigrants, and if they cannot provide proof of documentation, the state gives them the choice either to be deported to Mexico or to face imprisonment. The scenario doesn’t change irrespective of whether the individuals are actually from Mexico or not.
This approach might run contrary to constitutional norms, an issue that was addressed a decade ago when Arizona attempted a similar endeavor. In its judgement then, the Supreme Court elucidated that federal law outshines any state law or constitution, particularly in the context of immigration registration. In this realm, the federal government monopolizes regulation and even complementary state regulation is impermissible. This assertion came from Justice Kennedy himself at the time.
In light of these precedents, the district court blocked the law. However, after Texas appealed, the Fifth Circuit allowed the law to effectively come into play, albeit under the guise of an “administrative stay”. It seems the distinction between a “stay”, canceling a judgement temporarily, and an “administrative stay”, as merely postponing the judgement’s effect, has become pivotal in the present situation.
These semantics seem to give Texas the green light to implement the law, significantly affecting minorities, many of whom are U.S. citizens who may not carry sufficient identification papers. Justice Barrett, siding with Texas, has noted that the Supreme Court does not have the power of review because the Fifth Circuit has not enacted a stay pending appeal. Nevertheless, they have issued a temporary administrative stay, effectively delaying the evaluation of the stay motion.
The verdict from Justice Barrett evokes the idea of a court “being engaged to be engaged”, permitting Texas to implement its law which could be regarding as sidestepping constitutional norms. Unfortunately, only this line of reasoning is explicit from Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh, while the rest of the right-leaning judges have decided the case without offering any explanation.
The disagreement within the court is further displayed by Justice Sotomayor who asserts that the administrative stay has disrupted the status quo by allowing a new state law to effect, effectively altering the delicate balance of federal and state power in immigration enforcement. Barrett, however, seems to disregard these concerns, dismissing the clarity of defining “status quo”.
Justice Sotomayor also underscores that an administrative stay, by its very definition, is temporary and cannot be extended indefinitely. Justice Kagan exclaims more bluntly that a court’s decision to impose an administrative stay for a prolonged period, rather than resolving the stay pending appeal issue, should not be the determining factor in upholding or disregarding a law that has stood for a considerable length of time.
This undoubtedly marks a novel chapter in the intersection of constitutional law, immigration legislation and federal-state relationships. The complete details of this ruling can be found here.