City Of El Cenizo, Texas v. Texas

890 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Texas Legislature enacted SB4 to prohibit sanctuary city policies. The law imposes duties on certain state officials and provides civil and criminal liability for violations of those duties. SB4 forbids local entities from limiting the enforcement of federal immigration law. Under subsection (a)(1), a local entity may not 'adopt, enforce, or endorse a policy under which [it] prohibits or materially limits' immigration enforcement. Subsection (a)(2) further prohibits any 'pattern or practice' that similarly frustrates enforcement. A local entity may not 'prohibit or materially (b)(1) 'inquiring into the immigration status' of lawfully detained individuals, (b)(2) sharing immigration-status information with federal agencies, and (b)(3) 'assisting or cooperating with a federal immigration officer as reasonable or necessary, including providing enforcement assistance.' The prohibitions apply to any 'local entity or campus police department.' SB4's ICE-detainer mandate applies whenever '[a] law enforcement agency [ ] has custody of a person subject to' an ICE detainer. SB4 is enforced through civil and criminal penalties by Texas's Attorney General. Local entities may be subject to fines of $1,000 to $1,500 for a first violation and $25,000 to $25,500 for subsequent ones, with each day of continuing violation constituting a separate violation. Public officers found guilty of violating the law are subject to removal from office. Ps challenged the law and sought a preliminary injunction, and the district court found the plaintiffs likely to prevail on the following claims: Section 752.053(b)(3)'s assistance-cooperation provision is field and conflict preempted by federal immigration law; Section 752.053(a)(1)'s 'endorse' prohibition violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it is overbroad, discriminates on the basis of viewpoint, and is unconstitutionally vague; Section 752.053(a)(1) and (a)(2)'s 'materially limits' prohibitions are unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment; and Article 2.251's ICE-detainer mandate violates the Fourth Amendment. The injunction was granted. D eventually appealed.