TXAggie2011 said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

They didn't. The fifth circuit just dissolved their administrative stay, which allows the injunction that was entered in the district court to remain in effect. They're allowed to do that.

---

Not a lawyer. What does this mean? I guess I do not understand what the Supreme Court was ruling.

---

I tried to tell folks to "stay tuned" and that this wasn't over with. Basically…

The District Court issued an injunction against enforcing SB4 while the District Court decides whether SB4 is legal/constitutional.

The State of Texas asked the 5th Circuit to get rid of the injunction and allow them to enforce SB4 while the District Court decided the case.

The 5th Circuit "stayed" the injunction while they decided whether to permanently get rid of the injunction. This allowed Texas to implement SB4.

The US Government went to the Supreme Court and asked them to get rid of the 5th Circuit's stay of the injunction.

SCOTUS declined to do so for different reasons but the 5th Circuit was and is still deciding whether to actually get rid of the district court's injunction

---

Don't care. Enforce Texas law.

/Abbott

aggiehawg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

So I guess AZ will now be flooded with illegals. Hobbs will welcome them with open arms.

---

Same in New Mexico and California.

---

True, and very likely, but it's not Texas so I don't care.

And yes, I know that when they go through New Mexico they'll find a way to get to the jobs here in Texas, but at least we're really making them work harder for it.

The 5th Circuit hearing is happening right now. If I understand them so far, Texas' argument is they would only implement SB 4 in a limited way that would comply with Arizona v United States, so the Court should allow it to be implemented while the District Court hammers out a full ruling.

Antoninus said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

the lower court ruled against sb4.

---

Sweet baby Jesus. No.

Neither the "lower court" (presumably you are referencing the district court) nor any other court has "ruled against SB4"

no court, at any level, has ruled upon the constitutionality of the bill.

---

The district court did issue the preliminary injunction, which does come with the high bar of the court ruling the plaintiff is highly likely to succeed on the merits, and will receive irreparable harm if no injunction is put in place.

That is not ruling against SB4 itself, but you can read the tea leaves as you so wish.

And, of course, other courts could have a different opinion, as we will see with the 5th circuit coming up.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The 5th Circuit hearing is happening right now. If I understand them so far, Texas' argument is they would only implement SB 4 in a limited way that would comply with Arizona v United States, so the Court should allow it to be implemented while the District Court hammers out a full ruling.

---

what does that mean exactly?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The 5th Circuit hearing is happening right now. If I understand them so far, Texas' argument is they would only implement SB 4 in a limited way that would comply with Arizona v United States, so the Court should allow it to be implemented while the District Court hammers out a full ruling.

---

interesting approach, but I don't know how they could conceivably do it.

This is a criminal statute, a misdemeanor. As such, it would be enforced in the county courts.

How does the state of Texas (which would NOT be the enforcement agency for the Bill) propose to keep an eye on the elected county judges (constitutionally not even required to be attorneys) in 254 counties, spread across millions of square miles, to be sure that they comply with a case as complex as Arizona/US?

I would assume via guidance for law enforcement and guidance for prosecutors, or they're just saying courts will chip away and define its limits over time. But I don't know. It sounds like it would be a trust exercise. They did ask the district court to sever the law and only enjoin parts of it.

I'm not sure its a winner of an argument. Chief Judge Richman seems rather skeptical.

Doesn't mean Texas will lose, the Court could find another winning argument on their own.

So Texas pushing strong for a severability analysis kicked back down to the district court, determining which provisions may be perfectly jive with the Arizona decision, trying to keep something at least.

Though, I don't see how that would grant a stay of the injunction in its entirety until that analysis is completed, as that effectively concedes some parts of the legislation are very questionable.

Visually watching someone cross the border, detaining them, and handing them over to the feds without any other legal ramifications from Texas may end up being all that can be done, but how to mold SB4 to read that may not be easy.

Quote:

---

Though, I don't see how that would grant a stay of the injunction in its entirety until that analysis is completed, as that effectively concedes some parts of the legislation are very questionable.

---

Texas is almost surely going to lose 2-1 on the stay of the injunction pending appeal.

Oldham will dissent claiming no standing or something like that.


Texas can then go back to SCOTUS and see if they'll reverse or just wait until the 5th Circuit hears merits arguments on the injunction in April.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to enforce a contentious new law that gives local police the power to arrest migrants.
The conservative-majority court, with three liberal justices dissenting, rejected an emergency request made by the Biden administration, which said states have no authority to legislate on immigration, an issue the federal government has sole authority over.

That means the law can go into effect while litigation continues in lower courts. It could still be blocked at a later date.

---

LINK

---

So is the Supreme Court evil or good now? It seems to switch with every decision they make.

For the record, I like this decision but it shouldn't be necessary.

---

Shouldn't be neccesary. Wow! We agree on something.

Wait until you find out who filed suit to get it to SCOTUS. Your mind might be absolutely blown.

(You voted for him)

---

I have no idea who submitted the brief, just like you have no clue who I voted for. Such a lazy and dumb last statement in parenthesis.