Round Two: Texas Wins Judgment on Sanctuary Cities

You may recall our report previously on the liberal federal judge in San Antonio who ordered an injunction on Texas’ new law against sanctuary cities.

That order has just been overturned by the 5th Circuit Court which decided in favor of the state’s appeal.

The three-judge panel essentially agreed that Texas has the right to pursue justice on behalf of the people until such time as the law is ruled invalid by the courts.

In other words, the pause button liberal judges have been hitting so much lately on conservative laws isn’t gonna fly in Texas.

Amid the battle against judicial tyranny, we’re well reminded not all judges are derelict.

Here’s more from the Daily Signal…

Texas has just won the second (procedural) round in the fight over the state Legislature’s attempt to punish cities that implement sanctuary policies.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed on Monday key portions of the injunction issued in September by a federal judge in San Antonio that prevented the state from implementing major parts of the law.

As explained here, the 2017 statute applies to illegal aliens arrested or otherwise lawfully detained by local law enforcement.

The core parts of the law ban Texas cities from prohibiting or “materially limit[ing]” local law enforcement from:

  1. Notifying federal immigration officials that an illegal alien has been arrested.
  2. Cooperating with immigration authorities (including honoring detainer warrants on illegal aliens issued by federal authorities).
  3. Allowing federal immigration officers to enter local jails to conduct investigations of criminal illegal aliens.

The lower court federal judge had enjoined Texas from implementing the second and third provisions. However, the 5th Circuit issued a stay of that portion of the injunction.

Holding that Texas was likely to succeed on the merits of those two provisions, the 5th Circuit lifted the injunction until the appeals court has a chance to consider the merits of the case. Otherwise, the “state necessarily suffers the irreparable harms of denying the public interest in the enforcement of its laws.”

You Might Also Like