Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

SB4’s day in court

Sparks were flying.

Opponents of Texas’ state-based immigration law told a federal judge Monday that allowing the controversial measure to stand would pave the way for a nationwide police state where local officers could subvert the established immigration-enforcement powers of the federal government.

But the state’s attorneys argued in tandem with their colleagues from the U.S. Department of Justice that the issue was settled in 2012 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a state-based immigration-enforcement provision passed in Arizona.

The day marked the first skirmish in what could be a lengthy battle over Texas’ law, Senate Bill 4, which has been billed as the toughest state-based immigration bill in the country. Known as the “sanctuary cities” law, SB4 allows local law enforcement officers to question the immigration status of people they detain or arrest and seeks to punish local government department heads and elected officials who don’t cooperate with federal immigration “detainers” — requests by agents to turn over immigrants subject to possible deportation. Punishment could come in the form of jail time and penalties that exceed $25,000.

Opponents of the measure, including the cities of Houston, Austin, San Antonio and El Cenizo, as well as Maverick and El Paso counties, have argued the law violates several provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including guarantees of equal protection and freedom of speech. They are seeking a temporary injunction of the rule, which is scheduled to go into effect Sept. 1.

Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union representing the city of El Cenizo, a small municipality in Webb County, argued that the law, as written is vague and provides such little guidance to officers that they will be forced to use a heavy hand when detaining or arresting someone. That, he said, will lead to a broad assumption that they need to ask nearly every minority their immigration status for fear of violating the provision of the law — the aftereffect of which would be an across-the-board erosion of Texans’ rights.

“The overriding point is that the penalties are so harsh that it’s simply unrealistic for any police officer to take a chance” of violating the law, Gelernt told U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia. “[The lawmakers] knew what they were doing when they crafted the legislation.”

There’s a lot more, so go read the rest. The state’s argument, among other things, was that SB4 was less strict than Arizona’s infamous SB1070, and that it adhered to the parts of SB1070 that were upheld by SCOTUS. The plaintiffs’ argument, also among other things, was that the law was so vague and broad it was hard to even say what it did and did not allow and require law enforcement agencies to do; they also noted that while the Arizona law punished agencies, SB4 targets individuals who fail to comply with it. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to prevent the law from taking effect while the matter is being litigated; you can read the ACLU’s application for an injunction here. Judge Garcia did not say when he might rule, but he did note that he’s also one of the judges in the redistricting litigation, so maybe don’t expect anything till after those hearings in July. The Observer, the Chron, and the Current and Current again have more.

Related Posts:

5 Comments

  1. Bill Daniels says:

    SB4 is Houston’s best chance to fix its traffic snarls, as we force local policing agencies to actually REMOVE unlicensed drivers from our streets. Once the shock waves start hitting, this should be a boon for Metro, as unlicensed drivers start taking the bus.

    Lighter traffic and safer roads result as unvetted, dangerous drivers are pulled off the road. Isn’t this a good thing? Why would any city oppose safer streets?

  2. Bill Daniels says:

    “That, he said, will lead to a broad assumption that they need to ask nearly every minority their immigration status for fear of violating the provision of the law — the aftereffect of which would be an across-the-board erosion of Texans’ rights.”

    Uh, no. Cop pulls car over. Cop asks for DL and insurance card. Cop GETS DL and insurance card. Cop writes ticket. Stop concluded. Texas no longer gives out DL’s to undocumented immigrants, so anyone showing a TDL or TX ID card doesn’t need to be asked anything about legal status.

    Every single time I have been a driver or passenger in a car that was pulled over, I had to break out ID. Every. Single. Time. My “white privilege” didn’t seem to help.

  3. neither here nor there says:

    Cop thinks, looks like an illegal, think I see that he failed to come a full stop. Cop see what he believes is an illegal and says looks like he failed to signal to change lanes. Cop sees what he believes is an illegal jay walking? In a perfect unbiased world what you stated could have some merit.

  4. […] neither here nor there on SB4’s day in court […]