Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a814_febh.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

Cite as:  601 U. S. ____ (2023) 

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 23A814 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY 

_________________ 

No. 23A815 
_________________ 

LAS AMERICAS IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER, 
ET AL. v. STEVEN MCCRAW, DIRECTOR, TEXAS 
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY 

[March 19, 2024]

 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE JACKSON joins,

dissenting from denial of applications to vacate stay. 

Today, the Court invites further chaos and crisis in im-
migration  enforcement.  Texas  passed  a  law  that  directly
regulates the entry and removal of noncitizens and explic-
itly instructs its state courts to disregard any ongoing fed-
eral immigration proceedings.  That law upends the federal-
state balance of power that has existed for over a century,
in  which  the  National  Government  has  had  exclusive  au-
thority over entry and removal of noncitizens.  The District 
Court here declared that Texas’s law amounts to “nullifica-
tion of federal law and authority—a notion that is antithet-
ical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected
by the federal courts since the Civil War.”  2024 WL 861526, 
*1 (WD Tex., Feb. 29, 2024). 

Texas appealed that ruling and sought to begin enforcing
its  law  while  it  appeals.    With  no  reasoned  analysis,  the 
Court of Appeals issued an administrative order allowing it