In a recent development, the Supreme Court has given the green light for Texas to immediately enforce a contentious immigration law that empowers state officials to apprehend and detain individuals suspected of entering the country illegally. The decision comes as a blow to immigration advocates, who have expressed concerns regarding potential racial profiling and increased detentions and deportations by state authorities.

The law, known as Senate Bill 4 (SB4), was signed into law by Republican Governor Greg Abbott in December. It criminalizes illegal entry into Texas and grants state judges the authority to order the deportation of immigrants. Typically, immigration enforcement falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

However, on Tuesday, the Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented, highlighting their reservations regarding the law's potential implications. Legal challenges against SB4 are still ongoing in a federal appeals court, but this ruling provides Texas with a significant yet temporary victory in its ongoing battle with the Biden administration over immigration policy.

The Supreme Court had initially blocked the implementation of the law, issuing an indefinite pause on proceedings a day prior to Tuesday's order. However, this pause was abruptly overturned, allowing the law to be enforced immediately.

The concerns raised by immigration advocates stem from the fear of increased racial profiling and potential violations of individuals' rights. With Latinos representing 40% of the population in Texas, there are worries that the law may unfairly target certain communities.

Previously, a federal judge in Austin had blocked the state government from implementing the law. However, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay, asserting that if the Supreme Court did not act, SB4 would take effect on March 10. This prompted emergency appeals from the Biden administration and others.

Despite the immediate enforcement of the law, Governor Abbott acknowledged that the case would continue in the appeals court. The Supreme Court did not provide a detailed explanation for its decision, but Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, expressed in a concurring opinion that the appeals court's order was merely an administrative pause that should not be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

The dissenting justices, namely Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, voiced concerns that the order would lead to further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement. Sotomayor argued that the law disturbs the balance of power between the state and federal governments, potentially compromising foreign relations, hindering federal enforcement efforts, and discouraging victims of abuse or trafficking from coming forward.

Moving forward, the case will be heard on April 3 by the New Orleans-based appeals court. Barrett and Kavanaugh emphasized that the high court should refrain from second-guessing such short-term administrative pauses, allowing lower courts sufficient time to review the case.

Critics of the law, including attorney Tami Goodlette, who represents some of its challengers, expressed disappointment and concern, claiming that the order needlessly puts people's lives at risk. The Biden administration, as well as two immigration advocacy groups and El Paso County, are among the entities challenging the law.

The decision made by the Supreme Court has ignited a heated debate surrounding immigration policies and the balance of power between state and federal governments. The outcome of this ongoing legal battle will undoubtedly have significant consequences for the implementation of immigration laws and the rights of individuals affected.