Thread: Texas is in court today defending its sanctuary city ban

June 26, 2017
Jenny Jarvie

Scores of attorneys gathered inside a small San Antonio federal courtroom Monday as a string of cities and counties across Texas prepared to square off with the state and federal government on the state’s stringent new anti-sanctuary city law.

The court hearing on Senate Bill 4, a sweeping measure that forces local municipalities to help detain and deport those who are in the country illegally, promises a legal showdown with national ramifications.

“This is the first test, under the Trump administration, of a state attack on sanctuary cities,” said Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University in Alexandria, Va. “If the Texas law ends up being upheld, that might encourage other states to introduce similar legislation.”

Five Texas cities, as well as several counties and sheriffs, are challenging Senate Bill 4’s constitutionality. Some of the state’s biggest cities such as San Antonio, Austin, Dallas and Houston have signed on to the lawsuit originally filed by the small border town of El Cenizo. The suit contends SB 4 is an “extraordinary intrusion” on local officials’ ability to govern in “the manner they deem best for their residents.” It seeks a preliminary injunction of the new policy, which is set to take effect Sept. 1.

Emboldened by President Trump’s strident rhetoric on illegal immigration, Texas’ Republican-dominated legislature charged to the forefront of the national debate on immigration in April by passing the law cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities,” jurisdictions that choose not to cooperate with federal efforts to deport undocumented immigrants

Senate Bill 4 would allow local law enforcement officers to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they legally detain or arrest, even those stopped for minor traffic violations. It would also require local police to comply with federal immigration requests to detain those who are suspected of being in the country illegally. Police chiefs and county sheriffs who refused could face up to a year in jail.

Those challenging the new policy argue that it preempts federal law, is unconstitutionally vague, and violates the 4th Amendment right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the 14th Amendment right to equal protection. A requirement that no local official “endorse” a policy that limits the enforcement of immigration laws, they add, violates the 1st Amendment.

In turn, state and federal attorneys argue that the law simply promotes public safety and that nothing in federal immigration law prevents a state from directing law enforcement officers in the state to cooperate with the federal government.

“Elected officials and law enforcement agencies, they don't get to pick and choose which laws they will obey,” Republican Gov. Greg Abbott said when he signed the bill in May. “There are consequences — deadly consequences — to not enforcing the law.”

In a statement of interest filed Friday, attorneys for the Justice Department argued that SB 4 is an “important tool to promote public safety” and “represents an important decision by the state of Texas to ensure this cooperation occurs uniformly throughout the state.” The law does not violate the 4th or 10th Amendments to the Constitution, they argued.

“President Trump has made a commitment to keep America safe and to ensure cooperation with federal immigration laws,” the Justice Department states. “Texas has admirably followed his lead by mandating state-wide cooperation with federal immigration laws that require the removal of illegal aliens who have committed crimes.”

In the run-up to Monday’s hearing, a long list of mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, city council members, county judges and state legislators submitted declarations to U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, a Bill Clinton appointee, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. They argue that the law threatens public safety by weakening trust between police and the community and undermines local sovereignty by forcing municipalities to carry out the agenda of the federal government.

The legal hurdles plaintiffs face in challenging SB 4 are steeper than the ones involved in Trump’s executive order denying federal funding to sanctuary cities, according to Somin. “The difficulty for the plaintiffs is, generally speaking, states have much higher power over localities than the federal government does over states,” he said in a telephone interview.

Yet the plaintiffs likely have a strong claim that the law will encourage ethnic and racial profiling in a state with the largest proportion of Latino residents, Somin said, and there are similarities between Texas’s new law and Arizona’s controversial 2010 “show me your papers” law that the U.S. Supreme Court partially invalidated in 2012.

Last month, immigrant advocates in Texas launched a “Summer of Resistance” against SB 4. Convoys of activists from The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Texas Organizing Project, Workers Defense Project and the ACLU of Texas gathered in San Antonio on Monday, holding banners and placards outside the courthouse and denouncing Republican legislators who voted in favor of the bill for attacking immigrants for political gain.

“We are not afraid to face the Trump administration and Greg Abbott in this courtroom today," Austin City Councilman Gregorio Casar said to loud cheers outside the courtroom. “Your hatred is not welcome in Texas. We will not stop fighting until we win."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...626-story.html

Judge Tosses Texas Request To Declare Anti-Sanctuary Law Constitutional

I didn't expect it to be upheld.