Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a814_febh.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

10 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

they do not.”  Id., at *17. 

The District Court did not ignore Texas’s own harm ar-
guments,  of  course.  “[T]he  Court  does  not  doubt  the  risk
that  cartels  and  drug  trafficking  pose  to  many  people  in 
Texas. But as explained, Texas can (and does) already crim-
inalize those activities.”  Id., at *42. 

In  light  of  the  consequences  detailed  by  the  District
Court, the Fifth Circuit should have considered the consti-
tutionality and irreparable harm caused by S. B. 4 before 
allowing  the  law  to  go  into  effect.    Instead,  it  opened  the
door  to  profound  disruption.  This  Court  makes  the  same 
mistake. 

* 

* 

* 
The  Court  confronts  a  state  immigration  law  that  will
transform the balance of power at the border and have life-
altering  consequences  for  noncitizens  in  Texas.    Texas’s 
novel scheme requires careful and reasoned consideration 
in the courts.  The District Court gave S. B. 4 careful con-
sideration  and  found  that  it  was  likely  unconstitutional.
The Fifth Circuit has not yet weighed in, but nevertheless
issued  a  one-sentence  administrative  order  that  is  maxi-
mally disruptive to foreign relations, national security, the 
federal-state balance of power, and the lives of noncitizens.  
The Court should not permit this state of affairs.  I dissent.