Some Republican-led states are testing the waters of federal immigration authority, which could eventually prompt the Supreme Court to challenge over 150 years of established law.
Texas and Oklahoma are leading the charge, attempting to enact their own immigration rules due to what they see as the federal government’s failure to manage border issues. However, most of these attempts have been stalled by lower courts that argue immigration enforcement is strictly a federal responsibility.
Jawetz stated, “It’s astonishing that states would claim the authority to deport individuals while simultaneously preventing state judges from halting these actions, especially when the federal government is still determining the legality of those removals.” He emphasizes the blatant disregard for federal authority in such matters.
State Immigration Laws Face Roadblocks
In late June, a federal judge stopped a law in Oklahoma that aimed to criminalize living in the state without legal status. Judge Bernard M. Jones referenced a Supreme Court ruling from 2012, which struck down an Arizona law attempting to bolster federal immigration enforcement with state measures, deeming it unconstitutional.
That Supreme Court was closely divided along ideological lines and ruled that Arizona’s actions violated federal immigration authority.
Jawetz, now with American Progress, noted that recent state laws have been testing the limits set by Arizona’s ruling. “Texas’s restrictive interpretation of immigration law essentially gave more power to the Mexican government over immigration than federal authorities,” Jawetz explained. The Supreme Court found that approach ridiculous.
In a 2023 case, Texas attempted to obstruct the Secretary of Homeland Security’s immigration enforcement priorities, but the current Supreme Court ruled that was beyond their authority.
In the Oklahoma situation, Judge Jones acknowledged state frustrations over immigration policy but reiterated that it was not their role to take action. Oklahoma’s Attorney General Gentner Drummond is appealing, arguing the law was meant to combat “illegal marijuana farms.”
Drummond criticized the Biden administration’s handling of the border crisis, stating that Oklahoma must take steps to ensure public safety and describing the law as crucial in addressing criminal activity linked to undocumented immigrants.
Although states like Texas and Oklahoma have faced legal challenges, the judges have signaled willingness to reconsider if the Supreme Court offers new guidance. The question remains whether the conservative-leaning Court would be inclined to overturn long-standing precedents regarding immigration law, especially after notable shifts in other major rulings.
With few justices from the 2012 Arizona ruling still on the bench, the landscape has shifted significantly. Jawetz warned that if immigration authority shifted to states, it could result in chaos—each managing deportations differently could strain U.S.-Mexico relations.
Challenges to state-level immigration laws have also emerged from the U.S. Department of Justice, emphasizing federal supremacy, and organizations like the ACLU, focusing on the impacts on mixed-status families caught up in these legal battles.
A Supreme Court decision could provide clarity amid this uncertainty. As immigration remains a significant election year issue, the Biden administration has sought to address the ongoing crisis, though comprehensive immigration reform has stalled for years, leaving many in limbo.
“When we react to poor proposals from the other side, it makes us appear to be defending the status quo,” Jawetz expressed. There’s a widespread sentiment that the current immigration system fails to adequately serve American families, businesses, and the economy.