Can someone more familiar with the precedent help me understand this case? It seems pretty clear that federal immigration law preempts any contradictory state law, but in this case the state law apparently does not contradict federal law. (Or is that not so?) Does the existence of the federal law prevent the state from enforcing even a compatible state law? Or does the exercise of discretion by the federal government regarding the manner in which federal law is enforced preempt a state from choosing to prosecute someone for violating state law if the federal government chose not to prosecute that person for violating an identical federal law?
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito once again extended his freeze of a Texas law enabling state law enforcement to arrest people they suspect are illegally entering the United States from Mexico.
The conservative justice’s brief order came without explanation and does not signal how he or the full court would ultimately rule.
His previous two pauses automatically ended at a given time, and the latest iteration was expiring late Monday afternoon just as Alito handed down his extension.
The Justice Department is urging the justices to block the law, passed by Texas’s Republican-controlled legislature last year, asserting it is an “unprecedented intrusion into federal immigration enforcement.”
Greg Abbott (R), the far-reaching statute makes illegal immigration a state crime, enabling state and local law enforcement the authority to arrest undocumented migrants, who could then face deportation or jail time.
The Justice Department’s emergency motion is joined by a similar application filed by the County of El Paso, Texas, and two immigrant rights groups.
The original article contains 346 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 53%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
