Truax v. Raich

1 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Round Two SB 4: Texas Follows Arizona in State Preemption Attempt of Federal Border Control

    Dickinson WrightDecember 22, 2023

    icials a much broader power to make arrests than under the federal system and would be an obstacle to the removal system.) Note that in the decision, the Court’s decision stated the following: A decision on removability requires a determination whether it is appropriate to allow a foreign national to continue living in the United States. Decisions of this nature touch on foreign relations and must be made with one voice. See Jamav.Immigration and Customs Enforcement,543 U.S. 335, 348 (2005) (“Removal decisions, including the selection of a removed alien’s destination, may implicate [the Nation’s] relations with foreign powers and require consideration of changing political and economic circumstances” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see alsoGalvanv.Press,347 U.S. 522, 531 (1954) (“Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are ... entrusted exclusively to Congress ...”);Truaxv.Raich,239 U.S. 33, 42 (1915) (“The authority to control immigration—to admit or exclude aliens—is vested solely in the Federal Government”).It is hard to imagine why the Texas proposed removal authority created under SB4 would remain in effect and not be preempted by existing federal law.Later, in 2016, Arizona settled a lawsuit with the National Immigration Law Center, dropping the enforcement of the remaining provision of SB 1070. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich issued the following statement in conjunction with the settlement:“Officers shall not prolong a stop, detention, or arrest solely to verify immigration status. Officers shall not contact, stop, detain or arrest an individual based on race, color, or national origin, except when it is part of a suspect description.” If officers suspects that a person is in the country illegally, they may contact U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement “unless doing so would prolong the stop or detention,” Brnovich wrote.In conclusion, while the state’s frustratio