Immigration enforcement is exclusively the federal government's arena
In the long contest between state ambition and federal authority, Texas has drawn a new line — one that civil rights groups say no state has ever dared to draw before. Senate Bill 4, set to take effect May 15, would transform local police and magistrates into instruments of immigration enforcement, a power the Constitution has long reserved for the federal government alone. A coalition of advocates has returned to court, racing against days rather than months, to hold that boundary in place. The outcome may reaffirm — or quietly redraw — one of the foundational divisions of American governance.
- A May 15 deadline is bearing down: Texas S.B. 4 could take effect within days after a federal appeals court lifted the injunction that had blocked it since 2024.
- The law doesn't merely tighten enforcement — it creates entirely new state-level immigration crimes and hands deportation authority to local magistrates, a power no state has previously claimed.
- Migrants with legal status, pending asylum claims, or green cards could face arrest and prosecution under provisions that make no exception for federal proceedings already underway.
- The ACLU, the Texas Civil Rights Project, and the ACLU of Texas have filed suit targeting four specific provisions, arguing that every court to examine similar laws has struck them down on constitutional grounds.
- With the Trump administration having withdrawn federal opposition to the law, civil rights groups are now the last line of legal resistance standing between the statute and enforcement.
A coalition of civil rights organizations filed suit Monday to block Texas Senate Bill 4, a law that would allow state police to arrest migrants for illegal entry and empower local magistrates to issue deportation orders — powers that have long belonged exclusively to the federal government. The law is scheduled to take effect May 15, after a federal appeals court vacated an earlier injunction that had kept it on hold since 2024. The groups have days to convince a court to stop it again.
The lawsuit, brought by the Texas Civil Rights Project, the ACLU, and the ACLU of Texas, challenges four specific provisions: a state crime for illegal re-entry that applies even to those who have since obtained legal status; magistrate authority to order deportations; criminal penalties for failing to comply with those orders; and a requirement that state prosecutions continue even when a federal immigration case — such as an asylum claim — is already pending. Each provision, the groups argue, unconstitutionally intrudes on federal jurisdiction.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs were pointed in their criticism. Kate Gibson Kumar of the Texas Civil Rights Project called the law both unconstitutional and a weaponization of state resources against vulnerable communities. Cody Wofsy of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project noted that every court to examine similar state immigration laws on their merits has found them unconstitutional. Adriana Piñon of the ACLU of Texas warned that the law would turn police officers and judges into immigration agents, threatening longtime Texas residents — including those with legal status.
This is not the first challenge to S.B. 4. The Biden administration had sought to block it in 2024, but the Trump administration withdrew the Department of Justice from that effort as part of its broader deportation agenda, leaving civil rights groups to carry the fight alone. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office had not responded to requests for comment. Whether a court agrees that federal immigration authority is as constitutionally settled as the plaintiffs claim will determine the law's fate — and potentially reshape the boundary between state and federal power for years to come.
A coalition of civil rights organizations filed suit on Monday to block the enforcement of a Texas law that would grant state police and local judges powers traditionally reserved for federal immigration authorities. The law, known as Senate Bill 4, is scheduled to take effect on May 15 after a federal appeals court last week vacated an earlier injunction that had kept it from being enforced since 2024. The timing is tight: the groups have days to convince a court to stop it again.
The statute creates a state-level crime for illegal entry into the country and empowers state magistrates to order deportation of anyone convicted under it. This represents a direct challenge to a legal principle that has held for decades—that immigration enforcement belongs exclusively to the federal government. Texas Republicans pushed the law through amid rising migrant crossings at the southern border, but civil rights advocates say it crosses a constitutional line that no state has attempted to cross before.
The lawsuit, filed by the Texas Civil Rights Project, the ACLU, and the ACLU of Texas, targets four specific provisions. The first makes it a crime to re-enter the country illegally, even if someone has since obtained legal status like a green card. The second grants magistrates the authority to issue deportation orders. The third criminalizes failure to comply with those orders. The fourth requires magistrates to continue prosecuting someone even if they have a pending federal immigration case, such as an asylum claim. Each provision, the groups argue, violates the Constitution by intruding on federal jurisdiction.
Kate Gibson Kumar, an attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project, said in a statement that the fight against the law continues. She called it not only unconstitutional but a law that weaponizes state resources against vulnerable communities. Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, added that every court that has examined similar state immigration laws on their merits has found them unconstitutional. He characterized S.B. 4 as both cruel and illegal.
Adriana Piñon, legal director of the ACLU of Texas, framed the issue plainly: the law would turn police officers and judges into immigration agents, threatening neighbors who have lived in Texas for years, including those with legal status. Immigration enforcement, she said, is exclusively the federal government's responsibility, and no state has ever claimed the power Texas is now attempting to exercise.
This is not the first legal challenge to the law. An earlier lawsuit, led by some of the same groups, had been filed previously. The Biden administration initially sought to block it in 2024, but the Trump administration withdrew the Department of Justice from that case last year as part of the president's mass deportation agenda. Now the civil rights groups are back in court, racing against a May 15 deadline to prevent the law from taking effect. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office has not yet responded to requests for comment. The outcome will likely hinge on whether a court agrees that the Constitution's framework of federal immigration authority is indeed as settled as the plaintiffs claim.
Notable Quotes
S.B. 4 would transform our police and judges into immigration agents—threatening neighbors who have families here, who have lived here for years, even those who have legal status.— Adriana Piñon, legal director at the ACLU of Texas
Every court to have reached the merits of laws like S.B. 4 has found them to be unconstitutional.— Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that this is a state law rather than a federal one? Isn't Texas just trying to enforce the same rules?
Because the Constitution gives Congress exclusive power over immigration. States can't create their own immigration crimes or deportation procedures—it's like Texas trying to conduct foreign policy. The federal government has to be the one making those calls.
But the appeals court already said the earlier lawsuit didn't have standing. What's different about this one?
The groups are back with a different legal theory, arguing the law violates the Constitution on its face. They're saying even if you could sue before, you definitely can now because the law is about to take effect and harm people.
Who gets hurt if this law goes into effect?
Anyone the state decides to prosecute for illegal entry—but also people with green cards or pending asylum cases. A magistrate could order them deported even though they have legal status or a federal case pending. It creates chaos.
Has the Trump administration said anything about this?
Not directly. But they withdrew federal support for the earlier lawsuit, which signals they're not opposed to what Texas is doing. That's a big shift from the Biden position.
What do courts usually do with state immigration laws?
They strike them down. Every court that's actually ruled on the merits of laws like this has found them unconstitutional. That's the civil rights groups' strongest argument.