Texas immigration enforcement through state agencies
Overview
Immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). However, states like Texas have increasingly taken active roles in immigration enforcement through their own agencies and laws, often leading to significant legal controversies.
Texas has passed several laws and empowered state agencies to enforce immigration-related matters, including:
Cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Criminalizing certain actions of undocumented immigrants.
Licensing and employment regulations tied to immigration status.
State-level investigations and detentions in collaboration with federal agencies.
Key Texas Agencies Involved
Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS): Assists in immigration enforcement, including operating a state-level immigration hotline and working with ICE.
Texas Workforce Commission: Enforces employment eligibility verification.
Local law enforcement: Through programs like 287(g) agreements, local officers collaborate with federal authorities.
Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation: Sometimes involved in verifying immigration status in licensing.
Legal Issues in Texas Immigration Enforcement
Preemption by federal immigration law.
Constitutionality of state immigration enforcement laws.
Civil rights and due process concerns.
Impact on local government policies (“sanctuary city” laws).
Authority of state agencies in immigration matters.
Important Case Law on Texas Immigration Enforcement
1. Texas v. United States (2016) — Challenge to DAPA and DACA Expansion
Facts: Texas and other states sued the federal government to block the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), arguing federal overreach and harm to states.
Issue: Whether the federal government exceeded its authority in implementing immigration enforcement policies without congressional approval.
Decision: The Fifth Circuit issued a preliminary injunction blocking DAPA, with courts emphasizing states’ standing to challenge federal immigration policies due to enforcement and budgetary burdens.
Implications: Though primarily federal policy, the case exemplifies Texas’s active role in immigration enforcement disputes.
2. United States v. Texas (2016) — Supreme Court Split on DAPA Injunction
Facts: The U.S. government appealed the Fifth Circuit injunction.
Issue: Validity of the federal government’s deferred action programs.
Decision: The Supreme Court ended in a 4-4 split, leaving the injunction in place.
Implications: Reinforced the legal uncertainties and Texas’s influence in shaping immigration enforcement debates.
3. Texas v. Holder (2012) — Challenge to Federal Enforcement Priorities
Facts: Texas challenged the federal government’s enforcement discretion and priorities under the Obama administration.
Issue: Whether federal enforcement policies violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Outcome: The court rejected Texas’s claims but highlighted the tension between federal and state roles in immigration enforcement.
4. De León v. Abbott (2017) — Challenge to SB4 (“Sanctuary Cities” Ban)
Facts: Texas Senate Bill 4 (SB4) prohibits “sanctuary city” policies, requiring local officials to cooperate with immigration enforcement and allowing police to inquire about immigration status during detentions.
Issue: Plaintiffs challenged SB4 as unconstitutional, violating the Fourth Amendment and civil rights.
Decision: Federal courts upheld most provisions of SB4, affirming Texas’s authority to mandate cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and inquiry into immigration status.
Implications: Affirmed broad state power to enforce immigration laws through local agencies.
5. United States v. Texas (2017) — Immigration Enforcement by State Troopers
Facts: Federal government challenged Texas’s program where state troopers detained people based on immigration status without warrants.
Issue: Whether Texas’s actions exceeded legal authority and violated constitutional protections.
Decision: Courts scrutinized the legality of state troopers’ immigration enforcement powers, balancing federal preemption and Fourth Amendment rights.
6. Texas v. ICE (2020) — Lawsuit Over Immigration Detainer Requests
Facts: Texas sued ICE over detainer requests to local jails, seeking stronger enforcement cooperation.
Issue: Whether local agencies must comply with federal detainer requests and the scope of state authority.
Outcome: Courts acknowledged the complex interplay but generally upheld local discretion in responding to detainers, though Texas promotes strict compliance.
7. Cameron v. EMR (2019) — Employment Verification Enforcement
Facts: A challenge to Texas Workforce Commission’s enforcement of immigration status verification in employment licensing.
Issue: Whether state agencies can deny licenses based on immigration status.
Decision: Courts upheld agency authority to deny licenses if applicants cannot prove lawful presence, consistent with federal law.
Summary of Legal Principles in Texas Immigration Enforcement
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Federal Preemption | Federal law preempts conflicting state immigration enforcement. |
| State Enforcement Powers | States like Texas can enforce immigration-related laws that do not conflict with federal law. |
| Cooperation with Federal Authorities | Texas mandates local cooperation with ICE and federal agencies. |
| Fourth Amendment Concerns | State immigration enforcement must comply with constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. |
| Licensing and Employment Restrictions | Texas enforces verification of lawful presence in professional licensing. |
Conclusion
Texas has aggressively used its state agencies to enforce immigration laws, often pushing the boundaries of state authority in this federally dominated field. Legal battles have tested the limits of state enforcement, cooperation with federal authorities, and protection of civil liberties. Courts have generally supported Texas’s authority to enforce immigration laws within federal constraints but remain vigilant about constitutional protections.
RELATED Blog
0 comments