Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a814_febh.pdf
Page Number: 9

4 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

These  crimes  are  punishable  by  thousands  of  dollars  in
fines and up to one year in prison.  §51.03(b).

Once  Texas  charges  a  noncitizen  under  S.  B.  4,  a  state
judge may, with the consent of the noncitizen, enter an or-
der that “require[s] the person to return to the foreign na-
tion from which the person entered or attempted to enter”
before  any  conviction.    Tex.  Code  Crim.  Proc.  Ann.,  Art. 
5B.002(a)–(c) (Vernon 2024).  Once a noncitizen is convicted 
under  S.  B.  4,  however,  the  judge  “shall  enter”  an  “order 
requiring  the  person  to  return  to  the  foreign  nation  from 
which  the  person  entered  or  attempted  to  enter”  after  he 
completes his state prison sentence.  Art. 5B.002(d).  Fail-
ure to comply with these state removal orders is a second-
degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison.  Tex. 
Penal  Code  Ann.  §§51.04,  12.21.    Strikingly,  state  judges 
must explicitly disregard any parallel federal immigration 
proceedings.  Tex.  Code  Crim.  Proc.  Ann.,  Art.  5B.003  (“A
court may not abate the prosecution of [the relevant S. B. 4
offense] on the basis that a federal determination regarding
the immigration status of the defendant is pending or will
be initiated”). 

C 
The  United  States,  two  private  organizations,  and  the
County of El Paso challenged S. B. 4.  In a thorough 114-
page opinion, the District Court granted a preliminary in-
junction,  which  it  then  declined  to  stay  pending  appeal.
The District Court concluded that “the Supremacy Clause
and  Supreme  Court  precedent  affirm  that  states  may  not 
exercise immigration enforcement power except as author-
ized by the federal government,” and it concluded that “SB 
4 conflicts with key provisions of federal immigration law, 
to the detriment of the United States’ foreign relations and
treaty obligations.”  2024 WL 861526, *1.  Therefore, “to al-
low  Texas  to  permanently  supersede  federal directives  on 
the  basis  of  an  invasion  would  amount  to  nullification  of