Federal courts such as District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeals do have jurisdiction over state laws and state actions when federal questions are involved. For example, the 4th Circuit just negated a NC law requiring ultrasound viewing and description before an abortion. Although, I respectfully disagree with the decision of the 4th circuit, they still have jurisdiction to negate the law.
One thing to remember is that while states are free to assist in the enforcement of federal laws that ultimately only US Attorneys can actually prosecute federal law violations in federal court. Federal laws cannot be prosecuted in state courts nor can local district attorneys prosecute federal law violations. Likewise civil immigration issues cannot be adjudicated in state courts but rather only federal courts.
It is disappointing that de facto amnesty has been proclaimed but in all reality the lawsuit initiated by the Texas AG and supported by many other states is the one that has a legal great chance of being successful.
This is where we differ, you are willing to cede authority to an inferior court on State laws that might have federal implications. I am Not, My version of the Constitution is clear in this respect. As long as The State is a party, they have NO Jurisdiction. And until someone forces the issue the US Constitution is useless. I know the court has set this up this way, and I am sure they did it for good reason, they don’t want to be bothered with pesky State’s that still demand the Constitution be followed.
As long as The States plays by their rules, there is no chance of Liberty.