In a whirlwind of legal action, a controversial immigration law in Texas has been temporarily allowed and then blocked again, creating chaos and uncertainty. The law, known as Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), would grant state and local law enforcement the authority to arrest and deport individuals who are in the state illegally. However, the Biden administration has objected to the law, arguing that immigration law enforcement is the exclusive domain of the federal government based on the Constitution and legal precedent.

On Tuesday, a series of court orders led to conflicting outcomes regarding the implementation of SB 4. Initially, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the law to be enforced for several hours, but then a lower court reinstated the hold on the law close to midnight. A last-minute hearing was scheduled for Wednesday morning before a three-judge panel to review the details and arguments surrounding SB 4. The U.S. Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) advocated for striking down the law, while the Texas solicitor general defended it.

Senate Bill 4, passed last year, aims to empower state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law in response to what Texas Republicans perceive as the Biden administration's lax border policies. The legislation would enable police officers to arrest suspected undocumented immigrants and allow judges to order their deportation to ports of entry along Texas's border with Mexico, regardless of their country of origin. The law was originally expected to take effect on March 5 but was met with lawsuits from the U.S. government and the ACLU, resulting in a preliminary injunction to block its enforcement.

Texas appealed the injunction to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which then sought guidance from the Supreme Court. Although the Supreme Court allowed SB 4 to go into effect on Tuesday, the appeal court ultimately blocked it. The Wednesday hearing at the Fifth Circuit aimed to determine whether the preliminary injunction should remain in effect, thus continuing to prevent the implementation of SB 4.

The Biden administration argues that Texas overstepped its constitutional limits by passing SB 4, emphasizing that immigration policy and law enforcement fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Critics view the law as Texas' attempt to assume law enforcement capabilities reserved for the federal government. However, the Texas solicitor general claims that the state merely aims to coordinate with the federal government rather than take over its responsibilities.

Federal attorneys point to a 2012 Supreme Court decision, Arizona vs. United States, which invalidated a state law in Arizona that sought to establish state-level crimes for immigration offenses and empower local law enforcement to check citizenship status and make arrests based on suspicion of being in the country illegally. The Department of Justice argues that since SB 4 goes beyond Arizona's law, its provisions should also be blocked.

Opponents of SB 4 express concerns about potential racial profiling, as the law would allow law enforcement officers to question individuals' immigration status for any reason. They also worry that legitimate asylum seekers may face complications with their federal cases if they become entangled in state criminal charges. Mexico opposes the law and plans to file a legal brief at the Fifth Circuit, highlighting how SB 4 could impact the relationship between the two countries.

While some local law enforcement officers claim preparedness to enforce SB 4, others express uncertainty due to the lack of clear guidance on implementation and potential resource constraints. Culberson County Sheriff Oscar Carillo mentions the issue of capacity in jails and the need to consult with county attorneys before incarcerating undocumented individuals for misdemeanor crimes.

The appeals court hearing on Wednesday shed light on the gaps in understanding surrounding the enforcement of SB 4. The Texas solicitor general struggled to provide answers when questioned about various scenarios by Chief Judge Priscilla Richman.

As the case returns to the Fifth Circuit for further deliberations, the fate of Senate Bill 4 and the debate over the role of state and federal authorities in immigration law enforcement remain unresolved.