�����Թ�

In a divided decision Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit tossed out a challenge to a Texas law with virtually identical language. The court found that the groups trying to get Texas’s SB 4 declared unconstitutional lacked the legal standing to sue.

That's important here because Proposition 314, approved by Arizona voters in 2024 by a margin of more than 3-to-2, has a clause making its enforcement contingent on whether Texas’s SB 4 is found to be legal.

The new ruling is not the last word. It could mean, however, that the only thing holding up enforcement of the Arizona law is a final ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There could be more than Proposition 314 at stake.

The Texas Republicans who pushed for approval of SB 4 anticipated that the issue of whether states have the right to enforce federal immigration laws will end up before the nation’s high court. They said it could convince the Supreme Court to revisit its landmark 2012 ruling — by a less conservative court — that overturned Arizona's SB 1070.

That 2010 Arizona law contained multiple provisions dealing with immigration.

In their 2012 ruling, the justices allowed some provisions to take effect, such as requiring police, when they have stopped someone for any reason, to check on that person's immigration status if there is a reasonable suspicion they are undocumented.

But they voided other sections, including one that would have allowed police to make warrantless arrests if they believed a person was violating federal immigration law. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority decision, said that provision conflicted with federal law because it would allow the state to decide, without input from the federal government, whether an arrest was warranted.

Proposition 314 — the Arizona law whose enforcement is contingent on the fate of Texas’s SB 4 — contains several sections, including one that would increase the penalty for selling fentanyl that resulted in death, and another to make it a state crime to use fake documents to apply for public benefits or employment.

The key provision, however, would make it a crime for “an alien” to enter or attempt to enter Arizona directly from Mexico at any location other than a port of entry. Violations would be a Class 1 misdemeanor, which generally means six months in jail.

But proponents acknowledged the real purpose of that provision is to allow such people to be deported.

The measure says judges, rather than incarcerating individuals, would be authorized to instead order them to “return to the foreign nation from which the person entered” or to the “nation of origin.” Judges also would have the power to order a state or local law enforcement agency to transport such a person “to a port of entry.”

After Texas enacted SB 4 in 2023, it was challenged by the Biden administration.

A federal district court judge enjoined its enforcement, calling it “patently unconstitutional” because it conflicted with federal immigration enforcement and foreign relations. That decision was upheld by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals.

In the interim, though, the U.S. Department of Justice, now under the Trump administration, dropped its appeal. That left only El Paso County and two immigrant rights groups as the plaintiffs.

That proved crucial, with the full appellate court saying Friday that they lacked standing to sue in the first place.

Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton cheered the ruling.

"Texas’s right to arrest illegals, protect our citizens, and enforce immigration law is fundamental," he said in a prepared statement. "This is a major victory for public safety and law and order."

But Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said the new ruling is "a procedural decision," not addressing the legal merits of the law.

"It does not change what every court to examine similar laws has found: SB 4 is unconstitutional," he said in a statement. "This fight is far from over."