The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday overturned a two-year-old injunction and cleared the way for Texas to enforce SB4, the Republican-backed state law that empowers local authorities to arrest and prosecute people suspected of crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. The 10-7 ruling from the full New Orleans-based court marks a decisive turn in a legal fight that has bounced between federal courtrooms since Governor Greg Abbott signed the measure in December 2023.
U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, writing for the majority, dismissed the challengers' claims on standing grounds. His opinion was joined by all but two of the court's Republican-appointed judges.
As Reuters reported, the ruling means Texas authorities can now enforce a law that makes it a state crime to illegally enter or re-enter the state from a foreign country, and empowers state judges to order violators to leave the United States, with prison sentences of up to 20 years for those who refuse.
SB4's path to enforcement has been anything but smooth. Abbott signed the bill in December 2023 as part of a broader push to address what Texas officials called the federal government's failure to secure the southern border. Within weeks, legal challenges arrived.
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in February 2024, blocking the law before it could take effect. The case then reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which briefly allowed SB4 to stand, only for the 5th Circuit to halt enforcement again within hours, pending further review.
That procedural whiplash drew sharp criticism. As the Washington Examiner reported, the appeals panel appeared divided at earlier hearings, with Judge Andrew Oldham favoring Texas's position while Judges Priscilla Richman and Irma Carrillo Ramirez voted to keep enforcement on hold. Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson argued during that hearing that Texas has a "right to defend itself."
In July 2025, a 2-1 panel of the 5th Circuit upheld the injunction. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton then urged the full court to reconsider, and this time, he won.
Friday's ruling turned on a threshold question: Did the groups challenging SB4 have legal standing to bring the case at all? Smith said no. The immigrant-rights organizations Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and American Gateways, along with the city of El Paso, had continued the challenge after the Biden administration's Justice Department initially filed suit. But the Trump administration dropped the federal government's case, leaving the advocacy groups and El Paso to carry the fight alone.
Smith wrote that the groups' decision to voluntarily increase their representation of immigrants who might be affected by SB4 did not give them standing to challenge the law in court. His language was pointed:
"When enterprising plaintiffs repackage a generalized grievance as an 'injury,' courts should rightly exercise caution."
That framing matters. The majority did not reach the deeper constitutional question of whether a state can enforce its own immigration-related criminal statutes alongside federal law. It simply said these particular challengers had no right to be in court. The distinction is legally significant, it leaves the door open for future challenges by different plaintiffs, but practically, the result is the same: SB4 can now be enforced.
The broader question of state versus federal authority on immigration continues to generate heated clashes in federal courtrooms across the country.
Seven judges dissented. The most notable voice belonged to U.S. Circuit Judge Priscilla Richman, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, who broke with the majority on constitutional grounds.
Richman invoked a controlling 2012 U.S. Supreme Court precedent, widely understood to be Arizona v. United States, though the Reuters report does not name it, to argue that federal law preempts state efforts to criminalize illegal entry independently.
Her dissent was blunt:
"Texas cannot enact its own immigration regime."
That argument has been the centerpiece of opposition to SB4 from the start. The Biden administration made the same case when it initially challenged the law, contending that immigration enforcement belongs exclusively to the federal government. But the Biden-era legal posture is now moot. The Trump administration dropped the federal case, a move consistent with this White House's broader support for aggressive state-level border enforcement.
The administration's approach to immigration has generated its own share of legal confrontations, including a recent Supreme Court showdown over birthright citizenship.
The law creates a new state crime for illegal entry or re-entry into Texas from a foreign country. It authorizes Texas law enforcement to arrest suspected violators and empowers state judges to order those convicted to leave the United States. Refusal to comply carries prison sentences of up to 20 years.
Critics have argued the law effectively lets Texas conduct its own deportations, a power traditionally reserved for the federal government. Supporters counter that the federal government's failure to enforce existing immigration law left Texas no choice but to act.
Paxton hailed the ruling in a statement:
"Texas's right to arrest illegals, protect our citizens, and enforce immigration law is fundamental."
The attorney general's language reflects a posture Texas has maintained throughout the litigation: that the state is filling a vacuum created by federal inaction, not usurping federal authority. Whether courts ultimately accept that framing on the merits, rather than dismissing challengers on standing, remains an open question.
Friday's ruling lands in a political environment where immigration enforcement remains one of the sharpest dividing lines in American public life. The 5th Circuit, long regarded as one of the most conservative federal appellate courts, delivered a result that aligns with the priorities of both the Texas state government and the Trump administration.
The Biden administration's decision to challenge SB4 in court fit a pattern of using federal legal authority to block state-level enforcement measures. That pattern has not disappeared from the Democratic playbook, progressive officials and advocacy groups continue to signal willingness to use institutional leverage against policies they oppose.
But with the federal government now out of the case, the remaining challengers face a steep climb. The standing ruling makes it harder for advocacy organizations to serve as proxies in future litigation unless they can demonstrate a concrete, particularized injury, not just a policy disagreement.
The appeals court system has been at the center of several high-profile legal battles in recent months, from immigration policy to major Supreme Court rulings on state regulatory authority.
Several questions remain unanswered. It is unclear whether the ruling takes effect immediately or whether the challengers will seek Supreme Court review. The advocacy groups and El Paso have not yet indicated their next move.
If the case does reach the Supreme Court again, the justices would likely have to confront the preemption question head-on, the constitutional issue the 5th Circuit majority avoided by ruling on standing. That would force a direct reckoning with the 2012 precedent Richman cited and could define the boundaries of state immigration enforcement for a generation.
For now, though, Texas has what it wanted. After more than two years of injunctions, emergency motions, panel splits, and en banc rehearings, SB4 is no longer blocked. State authorities can begin arresting people suspected of crossing the border illegally, and state judges can order them to leave the country.
When the federal government wouldn't secure the border, Texas wrote its own law. When the courts blocked it, Texas kept fighting. The 5th Circuit just said: go ahead. The people who live along that border, the ones who never had a say in any of this, will finally see whether their state government can do what Washington wouldn't.