Supreme Court's Alito pauses Texas law on illegal border crossings

Reuters ^ | March 5, 2024 | Daniel Wiessner

[Dr. Franklin]

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Monday temporarily blocked a judicial decision that would let a Texas law take effect to give state officials broad powers to arrest, prosecute and order the removal of people who illegally cross the border from Mexico.

Alito issued his order - requested by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration - after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Saturday paused a federal judge's ruling that had blocked the Republican-backed Texas law.

His order is set to expire on March 13 but he or the full Supreme Court could take further action before then. Alito handles certain emergency matters involving cases from a group of states including Texas. The 5th Circuit ruling would have permitted the measure, known as SB4, to go into effect even as Biden's administration presses forward with a legal challenge claiming the statute unlawfully interferes with the federal government's enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.

The 5th Circuit stayed its decision for seven days to give the administration a chance to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Justice Department filed a petition with the Supreme Court on Monday arguing that the 5th Circuit's decision was wrong and that letting the law take effect would harm the U.S. relationship with Mexico and other countries. "And beyond its disruptive foreign relations effects, SB4 would create chaos in the United States' efforts to administer federal immigration laws in Texas," Justice Department lawyers wrote.

...

If Alito had not acted, the law would have taken effect on March 10 pending an appeal of last week's decision by U.S. District Judge David Ezra in Austin.

[Dr. Franklin]

Texas isn’t superseding federal immigration law. Feds aren’t enforcing it, and are actively aiding & abetting illegal immigration.
Feds have affirmatively rejected their Article IV, Section 4 duties, as delegated to them by the States. The responsibility to enforce the border therefore falls back to the States (who received that duty from the People). 10th Amendment applies.

If we are to be a nation of laws and not men, then someone must enforce the law. What we have seen in recent years are courts ignoring the law to concentrate on who is acting. So according to our courts, its OK to have rigged elections as long as the right people don't complain about it. They won't tell us who should act, but its never the people filing the lawsuits. Here, its not disputed that laws are being broken, but the states are denied the opportunity to act during an invasion because of federal nonfeasance. In short, our courts are ruling that rights don't have remedies. The right people in the executive branch can ignore laws they don't like, and it's just tough nuggies. People are getting angry with these elitist judges, because people know it's BS.

[zeugma]

Build the wall, so all who enter MUST come thru established entry points.

Or, turn everyone away at the border who has no legitimate business in this country.We need a 20 year moratorium on ALL immigration, and a new "operation wetback" to sweep this country clean of the vermin illegally here.

I still think snipers taking out a few would put a quick end to this. Texas should make a formal determination that anyone entering the country not through recognized border entry points is an illegal combatant, and can be dealt with appropriately. Given the number of people dying horrifically along the way, killing a few with head shots is the humane way to deal with this invasion.

[zeugma]

In brief, Alito thinks all is right with the world because he in on top. He defends the right of the state to do whatever it wants, along with its agents, while he is hostile to the rights of the individual. He defines the Bill of Rights narrowly, and finds that government officials have immunity when they violate rights. He prefers the federal government over the state government. Hence he is a federalist.

I really don't have a lot of disagreement with this statement. I've been reading supreme court decisions and oral arguments for years, and have generally been severely disappointed with how little the court is actually concerned about the rights of citizens, and how much weight they give to any claim made by a government lackey at any level.

[Dr. Franklin]

After 1808, the federal government, namely Congress has sole authority over immigration and naturalization.

To which I will also add that the idea that ONLY the federal government can enforce immigration laws is an extremely recent idea from federalist judges. Of yore, the law was the law, and anyone could enforce it at the state level.

[joe fonebone]

Based solely upon what I have read here, you are the only person that is right.
The hell with over 200 years of supreme court decisions, the hell with the constitution and the separation of powers, to hell with it all...
You are right, and your opinions are supreme.
Have a good day

[Dr. Franklin]

Based solely upon what I have read here, you are the only person that is right. The hell with over 200 years of supreme court decisions, the hell with the constitution and the separation of powers, to hell with it all... You are right, and your opinions are supreme. Have a good day

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) Justice Scalia, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

[Dr. Franklin]

I really don't have a lot of disagreement with this statement. I've been reading supreme court decisions and oral arguments for years, and have generally been severely disappointed with how little the court is actually concerned about the rights of citizens, and how much weight they give to any claim made by a government lackey at any level.

Alito is a social conservative. So, he favors a more traditional family lifestyle, and has disdain for abortion and wokeism. He supports religious freedom that is consistent with his personal beliefs. He also supports the Second Amendment, although to what extent is questionable. So, conservatives like him for those points, but he generally does not support the right of the individual against the state, especially the police.

While the general fault line on the Court is Left vs. Right, when the issue becomes federal preemption vs. state autonomy, the Court doesn't always decide things according to the usual Left vs. Right lines. Such cases are interesting to follow.

[zeugma]

he generally does not support the right of the individual against the state, especially the police.

True. Sadly, the same can be said of Thomas. There is no one on the court who doesn't believe we are property of the state. Not one.