A federal judge in Austin has halted the implementation of a new Texas immigration law that would have granted broad powers to state police to arrest individuals suspected of crossing the U.S.–Mexico border illegally.

The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge David Ezra, comes amid a heated legal battle between Texas and various immigration advocacy organizations, as well as the federal government.

The law in question, Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), signed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott in December, was set to take effect on March 5.

The law would have made illegally crossing the border a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. If convicted, the law requires migrants to return to Mexico under law enforcement transport.

In addition, the law permits judges to waive all charges if the person decides to voluntarily return to Mexico.

However, Ezra’s preliminary injunction blocks its enforcement pending further court proceedings.

The judge highlighted the potentially grave consequences of the law, asserting that its implementation could pave the way for other states to pass their own immigration laws, resulting in a fragmented and inconsistent regulatory landscape.

Ezra further underscored the supremacy of federal jurisdiction over immigration matters, stating: “SB 4 threatens the fundamental notion that the United States must regulate immigration with one voice.”

Moreover, he expressed concerns about the law’s impact on migrants potentially eligible for political asylum, warning that their arrest and deportation could violate constitutional principles and U.S. treaty obligations.

“Finally, the Court does not doubt the risk that cartels and drug trafficking pose to many people in Texas,” Ezra wrote in the court ruling. “But as explained, Texas can and does already criminalize those activities. Nothing in this Order stops those enforcement efforts. No matter how emphatic Texas’s criticism of the federal government’s handling of immigration on the border may be to some, disagreement with the federal government’s immigration policy does not justify a violation of the Supremacy Clause.”

In response, Governor Abbott and State Attorney General Ken Paxton have vowed to vigorously defend the law, expressing confidence that the case will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Governor Abbott said the state was determined to combat what he termed an “invasion,” citing concerns over the influx of migrants at the Texas–Mexico border.

Opponents of SB 4, including immigrant rights advocates and civil liberties groups, welcomed the court’s decision, hailing it as a victory for Texas communities.

Aron Thorn, a senior attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project, lauded the ruling for preventing the enforcement of what he described as an “extreme law” that could harm residents.

“This decision is a victory for all our communities as it stops a harmful, unconstitutional, and discriminatory state policy from taking effect and impacting the lives of millions of Texans,” said Edna Yang of the nonprofit American Gateways. “Local officials should not be federal immigration agents, and our state should not be creating its own laws that deny people their right to seek protection here in the U.S.”

The legal battle surrounding SB 4 reflects broader tensions over immigration policy and enforcement measures at the state and federal levels.

The ruling is expected to have significant implications for the ongoing debate over immigration laws and states’ roles in their enforcement.

As the legal proceedings continue, the fate of SB 4 remains uncertain, with its proponents and opponents gearing up for a protracted legal showdown that could shape the landscape of immigration enforcement in Texas and beyond.

In the midst of this legal battle, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump made visits to Texas’ southern border.