The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has cleared the way for Texas to enforce SB 4 by vacating a lower-court injunction on procedural standing grounds, a move that lets the state treat illegal entry outside official crossings as a state crime for now while leaving constitutional challenges to future litigation.
The 5th Circuit’s decision came as a welcome turn for Texas officials who have argued that federal inaction forced the state to act. The ruling does not resolve whether SB 4 is constitutional, but it removes the immediate barrier to enforcement and hands the state a practical victory on border security. Practically, that means state authorities can proceed with elements of the law that punish crossing between ports of entry.
Opponents had sued, saying immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility and seeking to keep the law blocked. The appeals court, however, found that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary legal standing to bring the case, so the injunction preventing enforcement was lifted. That procedural holding avoids a ruling on the law’s merits while still achieving the outcome Texas wanted this week.
AUSTIN, Texas – An appeals court has lifted a block on a state law that allows Texas to enforce immigration law.
The backstory:
Texas Senate Bill 4, passed in 2023 and scheduled to take effect in 2024, made entering Texas from another country anywhere outside of an official border crossing a state crime. It allowed state authorities to arrest people in those cases and allowed state judges to order them to self-deport.
A lawsuit filed by El Paso County and some non-profit groups led to an injunction from a lower court that stopped enforcement of the law. Opponents said immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility.
What’s new:
On Friday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 10-7 decision that the parties suing to prevent the law from going into effect lacked standing and lifted the restraining order.
Judges did not rule on whether the law is constitutional.
The court’s opinion runs to a dozen pages and focuses squarely on standing rather than constitutionality, which keeps arguments about preemption and federal power alive for another day. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith wrote the majority opinion, joined by a wide panel, emphasizing the Supreme Court’s standard that plaintiffs must have a real, personal stake in litigation. That narrow, technical route lets the appeals court avoid the explosive constitutional questions for now.
On Friday, the court issued a 12-page ruling solely on procedural grounds, arguing the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue. It didn’t address the merits of the claims.
Circuit Judge Jerry Smith wrote the opinion for the majority, joined by Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod and judges Edith Jones, Catharina Haynes, Don Willett, James Ho, Stuart Duncan, Kurt Engelhardt, Andrew Oldham and Cory Wilson. Citing Supreme Court cases, Smith wrote, “‘Courts sometimes make standing law more complicated than it needs to be; … [P]laintiffs must have a ‘personal stake’ in a case to have standing to sue; … Plaintiffs cannot ‘manufacture standing by voluntarily’ incurring costs.’
“That should be the end of this matter: These Plaintiffs voluntarily incurred costs to advocate for clients. Under recent Supreme Court precedent, that falls far short of conferring standing. We vacate the preliminary injunction to the contrary.”
This is not the endgame. Expect renewed challenges that aim straight at constitutionality and federal preemption, because those are the substantive issues many opponents still want resolved. For now, the decision hands Texas a policy win: state officers can enforce SB 4 provisions without the immediate threat of that preliminary injunction. Enforcement and its consequences will shape the next round of litigation and politics.
Texas framed SB 4 as a response to what state leaders describe as federal inaction at the southern border, invoking constitutional language that treats an invasion or imminent danger as material to state actions. The Constitution’s text about states and foreign powers was cited by state supporters to justify urgent measures in the face of mass illegal crossings. That reasoning reflects the frustration of many conservatives and border communities.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
The factual backdrop is stark: Texas officials speak of thousands upon thousands crossing the border and the strain that places on local resources and public safety. From the Republican vantage, this case illustrates why states sometimes feel compelled to take action when federal policy drifts or enforcement priorities change. That political context is central to understanding the court fight and the urgency behind SB 4.
The appeals court’s narrow ruling buys time for Texas and shifts the battlefield to future litigation and enforcement. Lawsuits addressing constitutionality, federal preemption, and the real-world effects of arrests and deportations are almost certain to follow. Meanwhile, state authorities now have room to implement parts of SB 4 while the broader legal questions play out.
Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump, illegal immigration into our great country has virtually stopped. Despite the radical left’s lies, new legislation wasn’t needed to secure our border, just a new president.
Add comment