Texas wants police to enforce border law, but judge says federal law controls deportation

Texas border law blocked hours before launch

On May 14, 2026, U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra blocked key parts of Texas Senate Bill 4 one day before they were set to take effect.

His 78-page order blocked parts that would allow Texas magistrates to issue removal orders, punish people for refusing them, and keep some cases going during federal immigration proceedings.

The illegal-entry part was not part of the lawsuit and took effect May 15. Ezra warned that SB 4 could create a patchwork of state immigration laws and interfere with federal control over immigration.

What the new Texas lawsuit argued

On May 4, 2026, the ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, and the Texas Civil Rights Project filed a new class-action lawsuit challenging parts of Senate Bill 4. The case was brought by two anonymous Honduran plaintiffs living in Austin, Texas.

One plaintiff is a lawful permanent resident, and the other received prima facie approval on a U-visa petition after being a crime victim and assisting law enforcement. Their lawyers argued that SB 4 could expose people with federal immigration protections to arrest, prosecution, detention, and removal under state law.

Four parts of SB 4 were blocked

The May 2026 lawsuit challenged four parts of Senate Bill 4. One part created a state crime tied to reentry after a person had been denied admission, removed, deported, or left while a removal order was still active.

Another gave Texas magistrates power to issue removal orders. A third made it a crime to refuse to comply with a magistrate’s removal order.

A fourth required prosecutions to continue even when a person had a pending federal immigration case. Judge Ezra found the challenged parts were likely preempted by federal immigration law.

The judge drew a sharp legal line

Judge Ezra, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, said Texas was unlikely to win because SB 4 intruded on federal immigration authority. His May 14 order found that the challenged parts conflicted with federal law by giving state officials immigration power without federal supervision.

He also warned that state removal orders could interfere with federal choices, foreign relations, and protections for people with pending immigration claims. The ruling kept deportation authority in federal hands and stopped Texas from running its own removal process.

The long legal road before May 2026

Texas passed Senate Bill 4 in 2023, but the law spent years in court before the May 2026 ruling. Judge Ezra first blocked SB 4 on February 29, 2024.

A Fifth Circuit panel later upheld the injunction in July 2025, but the full Fifth Circuit vacated that decision after rehearing the case.

On April 24, 2026, the full court ruled that the remaining organizational plaintiffs lacked standing and did not decide the constitutional issues. That cleared the way for SB 4 to take effect May 15.

Little-known fact: The Fifth Circuit used to be much larger. In 1981, Congress split off Alabama, Georgia, and Florida into the new Eleventh Circuit, leaving Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi in the Fifth Circuit.

Arrest power survived the court block

While Judge Ezra blocked SB 4’s reentry and removal parts, the illegal-entry part took effect on May 15, 2026. That part of the law allows peace officers to arrest and detain people suspected of crossing the Texas-Mexico border without authorization.

Civil rights groups warned that the remaining arrest power could lead to racial profiling and detention of people who are lawfully present. The court did not approve SB 4 in its entirety. It only blocked the specific parts challenged in the new lawsuit.

Texas AG targeted Dallas County sheriff

On May 13, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an investigation into Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown. He demanded that she seek a formal agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A Texas law that took effect on January 1, 2026, requires sheriffs who operate jails or contract for jail operations to participate in the federal 287(g) program.

Brown said Dallas County already cooperates with federal immigration officials and that the law gives her until December 1 to comply. Paxton demanded a report before June 1.

Many Texas agencies already work with ICE

Many Texas law enforcement agencies were already working with ICE through the federal 287(g) program before parts of SB 4 took effect in May 2026. The program allows participating local agencies to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement under formal agreements.

The Texas Tribune reported that Texas sheriffs had signed more than 270 agreements as of May 12, including some counties with more than one model. Some local agencies also entered agreements voluntarily, even though the state requirement applies to sheriffs who operate jails or contract for jail operations.

DPS already worked with ICE

Before SB 4 partly took effect in May 2026, Texas Department of Public Safety officers were already helping ICE through federal partnerships.

The Texas Tribune reported that DPS was assisting ICE through task forces and that some individual officers had been deputized with immigration authority under two ICE agreements.

The 287(g) task force model allows local officers to exercise enforcement authority during routine operations or while assisting an ICE-led task force. That means Texas already had federal immigration partnerships in place before the latest SB 4 ruling.

Texas argued invasion despite quieter border

During the May 13, 2026, hearing before Judge Ezra, the Texas attorney general’s office did not fully drop its argument that an invasion was underway at the southern border, even though crossings had dropped sharply from the record highs of 2023.

David Bryant, representing DPS Director Freeman Martin, acknowledged the quieter border but stopped short of withdrawing the invasion claim. Bryant also argued the case should be dismissed because SB 4 had not yet taken effect, and Martin had not decided how officers would enforce it. Judge Ezra rejected that argument the next day.

Plaintiffs faced real risk despite legal status

Judge Ezra found that the two anonymous Honduran plaintiffs faced a real threat of enforcement under SB 4. One plaintiff is a lawful permanent resident, and the other received prima facie approval on a U-visa petition.

The court found that the threatened enforcement and the severity of the harm supported a finding of irreparable harm. The lawsuit argued that SB 4’s reentry provision could reach people who had federal permission or later obtained lawful status, including a green card.

Federal law was at the center of the fight

The SB 4 fight centered on whether Texas could create its own immigration crimes and removal process when federal immigration law already controls that field.

Judge Ezra found that the challenged parts of SB 4 were likely preempted because they gave state officials power to enforce immigration law without federal supervision.

The Fifth Circuit’s April 2026 decision did not decide whether SB 4 was constitutional. It vacated the earlier injunction because the remaining organizational plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.

Federal appeals court backs Texas Ten Commandments school law, showing another major legal fight over state power and constitutional limits.

The broader fight over state immigration power

The Texas SB 4 battle is part of a wider fight over how much immigration power states can claim. In 2025, the Eighth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against an Iowa law similar to SB 4 because it likely conflicted with federal immigration law.

A federal district court also blocked a Florida law creating similar state immigration offenses, and the Eleventh Circuit declined to pause that injunction in June 2025. Texas officials argue that SB 4 mirrors federal law, but Judge Ezra found that the challenged parts are likely to conflict with federal authority.

Federal appeals court revisits challenge to Texas SB 4 immigration law, keeping the focus on whether states can create their own immigration enforcement rules.

Do you think Texas police should help enforce border law, or should deportation remain under federal control? Share your thoughts and drop a comment.

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.

Read More From This Brand:

• Federal Judge Blocks Texas Law Requiring ID to Download Any App
• Grieving Parents Have Forced Texas to Pass Historic Camp Safety Law
• New Texas law makes it easier and faster to kick out squatters