article: This suit challenged Texas's "Sanctuary City" legislation, Senate Bill 4 (SB4), which required local Texas law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration officials and punished them if they did not. Unlike the <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/results.php?searchSpecialCollection=46">other suits in this special collection</a>, this suit did not challenge President Trump's "Sanctuary City" Executive Order. At the time of this writing, there were three other cases addressing SB4 (in addition to this one). This case was before Judge Orlando L. Garcia, as was El Paso County v. Texas, No. 17-cv-00459 (W.D. Tex.), <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15831">IM-TX-0046</a>, and City of San Antonio, Texas v. State of Texas, No. 17-cv-00489 (W.D. Tex.), <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15852">IM-TX-0047</a>. The final case, Texas v. Travis County, No. 17-cv-00425 (W.D. Tex.), <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15767">IM-TX-0044</a>, was before Judge Sparks. The three cases pending before Judge Garcia were brought by pro-immigration cities and counties seeking an injunction barring implementation of SB4. The other case was brought by Texas, which sought a declaratory judgment to uphold SB4 against pro-immigration cities and counties. On June 6, Judge Garcia ordered a consolidation of this case with the San Antonio and El Paso cases, with this case becoming the lead case in the consolidation. The Travis County case, however, remained separate. On this case: On May 8, 2017, the City of El Cenizo filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. 2017 WL 1950681 (W.D.Tex.). The suit alleged that SB4 violated the 10th Amendment by commandeering local government and that it was preempted under federal immigration law. The City also complained that SB4's “endorse” prohibition violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, that its ICE-detainer mandate violated the Fourth Amendment, and that its “materially limits” phrase was unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Numerous procedural developments took place over the summer as the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction. The defendants sought to dismiss the cases and numerous entities sought to intervene. The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on May 18. 2017 WL 10900157. And they filed a second amended complaint on June 8 once the claims were consolidated. 2017 WL 9362206. The plaintiffs moved again for a preliminary injunction on June 5, 2017. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated case. The court allowed the City of Austin to intervene on June 12, 2017 and Austin filed an intervenor complaint that day. The plaintiffs filed another amended complaint on June 19, 2017. The same day, the plaintiffs and intervenors issued four separate motions for preliminary injunction. On June 21, 2017, Texas moved to dismiss the City of Austin’s complaint in intervention and El Paso County’s first amended complaint. Later that week, Judge Garcia granted two motions to intervene: to Travis County and the City of Dallas. On June 28 and 29, 2017, the state of Texas filed a series of motions to dismiss. The court allowed the City of Houston and the Texas Association of Hispanic County Judges and County Commissioners to intervene on June 30, 2017. On July 14, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss two complaints on intervention (the City of Houston and the Texas Association of Hispanic County Judges & County Commissioners). The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 20, 2017, to which the defendants responded with a motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Texas' motion to dismiss El Paso County's complaint on August 15, 2017. SB4 was set to go into effect on September 1, 2017, however on August 30 Judge Garcia granted a preliminary injunction enjoining Texas from enforcing certain provisions of the law that were preempted by federal law. 264 F. Supp. 3d 744 (W.D. Tex. 2017). In particular, Judge Garcia blocked the portion of SB4 that stated that local government officials may not "adopt, enforce, or endorse a policy under which the entity or department prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws." The following day, the defendants appealed that injunction and filed a motion to stay pending the appeal. The motion to stay was denied. Meanwhile, the following entities submitted briefs in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction: El Paso County, Travis County, the City of Austin, the City of San Antonio, the City of Dallas, the City of Houston, the City of San Marcos, the El Cenzino plaintiffs, the Anti-Defamation League, the Harris County attorney at the time, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Police Executive Research Forum, the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Human Rights Commission of Mexico, and a Houston-based law firm specializing in immigration law. At the appeals court, on September 25, 2017, the Fifth Circuit denied in part and granted in part the defendants' motion to stay the preliminary injunction while appeal was pending. 2017 WL 4250186. The court granted stay for the injunction on the enforcement of an SB4 provision that local entities could not "prohibit" immigration law enforcement by inhibiting cooperation with federal immigration officers. The court also stayed the injunction on the provision requiring enforcement agencies to comply with detainer requests issued by ICE. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Fifth Circuit on September 29 from the denial of their relief in the preliminary injunction order. Oral argument was held on November 7, 2017. The Fifth Circuit reversed the injunction on March 13, 2018, holding that SB4 did not violate the constitution with the exception of the prohibition on "endors[ing] a policy under which the entity or department prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws." 885 F.3d 332 (5th Cir. 2018). The court struck down that part of the statute, finding that it violated the First Amendment and lacked a limiting principle. As to upholding the remainder of the statute, the court did not find that SB4 conflicted with federal law so as to warrant preemption, nor did it find that the remainder of the statute violated the constitution. The court found that the law's mandate that local law enforcement was to comply with ICE detainer requests did not facially violate the Fourth Amendment, though it left the door open for an as-applied challenge should violations occur or ICE policy change. The court found that the provision forbidding policies or practices that "materially limit[]" the enforcement of immigration laws was not facially vague. The court also remanded the case. The plaintiffs petitioned the Fifth Circuit for a rehearing en banc, which was granted. Many amici were represented at this stage, including the states of West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, and many others in support of Texas. Amici in support of the plaintiffs included the Major Cities Chiefs Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Interfaith Coalition of Clergy and Religious Organizations, and many others. On May 8, 2018, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc upheld SB4 in its entirety, with the exception of the application of the "endorsement" prohibition of Tex. Gov't Code § 752.053(a)(1) to Texas officials, in an opinion which withdrew and superseded its March opinion. 890 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2018). The case was ordered remanded to the district court to vacate the remaining injunction provisions that had halted full implementation of SB4. The court held that Texas law was not preempted by federal law in this case, because while federal law regulates how local entities may cooperate in immigration enforcement, SB4 specifies whether they cooperate. It confirmed that the endorsement prohibition could not pass muster under the First Amendment. Most critically, the court found that the immigration detainer provision was not facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, and that the Constitution does not require probable cause of criminality to detain in the immigration context. The phrase “materially limits” in the provision forbidding any policy or pattern or practice that prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of the immigration laws, was not unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment; and the Texas constitution did not prevent Texas from preempting cities' home-rule authority in passing SB4. According to the ACLU, this meant that local officials were free to speak out against laws like SB4 that would require cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. For example, sheriffs and police chiefs can continue to speak publicly about why asking about immigration status is a poor police practice that harms public safety. However, because of the Fifth Circuit's May 2018 decision, local Texas officials were obligated under SB4 to assist in federal immigration enforcement, and could face penalties for declining requests to assist with federal immigration agents. However, the preliminary injunction had not covered the statute in its entirety. On April 22, 2019, the court stated as much in an order requesting an update from the parties as to the status of the litigation. The court reiterated that after the appeal, neither of the parties had continued to litigate though live claims still remained. On September 12, 2019, the El Cenizo and Travis County plaintiffs and the cities of Houston and Dallas filed to voluntarily dismiss their remaining claims with prejudice. In light of the failure of the facial challenge to SB4 and the Fifth Circuit's opinion, these plaintiffs no longer wanted to pursue the remaining as-applied claims. But on December 13, 2019, the City of Austin filed an amended complaint. It sought a declaratory judgment that SB4 violated the First Amendment because it penalized city officials for protected speech that "endorsed" policies contradicting SB4. It also sought an injunction against its enforcement. The city of El Paso and its official in their official capacity, along with Project Education Fund and MOVE Texas, also filed an amended complaint on December 13. They alleged that SB4 imposed unconstitutional mandates on local governments, facilitated discriminatory policing, chilled protected speech, and was pretext for discriminatory intent. They claimed that the ordinance violated Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and the First Amendment. They sought declaratory relief and an injunction against SB4's enforcement, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The case is ongoing.
summary: This suit challenges Texas's "Sanctuary City" legislation, Senate Bill 4 (SB4), which requires local Texas law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration officials and punishes them if they do not. Unlike the <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/results.php?searchSpecialCollection=46">other suits in this special collection</a>, this suit does not challenge President Trump's "Sanctuary City" Executive Order. In this consolidated action, the district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting SB4 from going into effect on its projected start date. The Fifth Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction and affirmed in a rehearing en banc, stating that the ordinance was facially constitutional. Some of the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims on remand. Others filed amended complaints in December 2019 and the case is alive again.