Appeals court puts controversial Texas immigration law back on hold

[ificandream]

Source: CNN

A federal appeals court late Tuesday night put Texas' controversial immigration law back on hold, hours after the Supreme Court had cleared the way for the state to begin enforcing the measure.

In a brief order, a three-judge panel at the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to wipe away a previous ruling from a different panel that had temporarily put the law, which would allow state officials to arrest and detain people they suspect of entering the country illegally, into effect.

The panel of judges that issued Tuesday night's order is already set to hear arguments Wednesday morning on Texas' request to put the law, Senate Bill 4, back into effect pending the state's appeal of a federal judge's block on the law.

One member - Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham - publicly dissented, saying he would let the law remain in effect for now.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/politics/texas-immigration-law-blocked-appeals/index.html

---

Woo hoo!!!!

==========

Link to ruling: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24488185-sb4

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. A federal appeals court put a controversial Texas immigration law on hold.

Link to tweet

[SunSeeker]

2. I guess Abbott will have to wait a little while longer before he can put kids in cages. nt

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. Appeals court blocks Texas immigration law shortly after Supreme Court action

The decision comes just hours after the Supreme Court said the measure, known as SB4, could go into effect while litigation continues.

Link to tweet

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/appeals-court-blocks-texas-immigration-law-supreme-court-action-rcna144193

A federal appeals court on Tuesday night ordered that a contentious new Texas immigration law be paused just hours after the Supreme Court said it could go into effect.

A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals split 2-1 in saying in a brief order that the measure, known as SB4, should be blocked. The same court is hearing arguments Wednesday morning on the issue.

The state law would allow police to arrest migrants who illegally cross the border from Mexico and imposes criminal penalties. It would also empower state judges to order people to be deported to Mexico.

The Supreme Court's order prompted alarm among immigrant rights activists amid confusion on the ground as to whether the law could immediately be enforced.

The appeals court appeared to be taking the hint from the Supreme Court, which in rejecting an emergency application filed by the Biden administration put the onus on the appeals court to act quickly.

"If a decision does not issue soon, the applicants may return to this court,” conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in a separate opinion joined by fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

[moniss]

4. The Conservative movement

in all it's "versions" has always hated the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution and that hate is at the heart of the "states rights" screamers in the country. When Brown v Board was decided they really went into high gear and it has been a bedrock plank of the GQP and the racists ever since to try and do everything possible to elevate the states over the Federal Government. This is why you see so many of their cases in the courts are about Federal Government "overreach" which is just code for their real goal which is to make every state it's own "kingdom". Their view is that if a state law conflicts with a Federal law then the state law should hold sway. So they pass state laws to chip away at Federal regulations, which they see as "improperly passed laws". Which they're not.

The Feds empower the regulating agencies to develop and enact regulations for their areas of jurisdiction. The law creating the agency delegates that to them. The GQP is of the wacky opinion that each and every regulation, no matter how minute, should come before Congress for passage. The same body that can barely work together enough to keep the lights on.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. "each and every regulation, no matter how minute, should come before Congress for passage"

And at the same time, they bitch about legislation that is "thousands of pages long" and they often dramatize that by sideshow antics like rolling around the floor of the House with a cart that has stacks of paper that purportedly belong to some printed bill, and will whine about how they don't have time to read that (while about to on yet another "break" ).

The agencies drafting regulations are delegated to create them BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION and BY CONGRESS so Congress doesn't have to get lost in the weeds adding even more thousands of pages to the original legislation.

And why "thousands of pages"? Because the U.S. is such a litigious society that every little nit will be picked, no matter what it is.

[moniss]

9. Good point about the

litigation aspect. Yes as I pointed out the agencies are enabled with powers delegated and as you pointed out the length of the regulations is used as a weapon politically. While in the same breath they run to the court to scream "overly vague" if the regulation is not exhaustive in scope and definition of every item and every possible nuance.

Also regarding the litigation/legal attack approach it is standard procedure in regulated industries to have your legal/technical personnel pour over every new regulation that comes out that affects that particular industry. Some do it for the sole purpose of compliance while some do it for the purposes of finding "ways around" things so that they can operate in gray areas as a defense against violations. Those gray areas are claimed to exist due to highly creative interpretations by the lawyers/technical staff and so much of the litigation is not so much about determining whether a plain violation has occurred as much as it is battling over the existence, use etc. of these gray areas.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. Anyone who is (or was) in a civilian federal government agency

is familiar with the Code of Federal Regulations that their agency is responsible for.

It's all online nowadays but many of us remember the days of the bookcases filled with them (and the periodic updates) and they do still publish the "hard copies".

[moniss]

11. Nice picture and I

remember years ago when I analyzed OSHA regs for applicability to some things. Not a one day task by any means. I also spent a good deal of time in the EPA regs where hazardous waste gets defined, regulated, becomes nonhazardous due to legal/technical/medical "research" maneuvers and then gets defined over into another area of enforcement. Until it gets brought back to being considered hazardous and the circus starts all over again. The substances that were my main focus were lead, PCB's, VOC's and the "forever chemicals". Those forever chemicals were considered to be benign more or less. Until they weren't.

Most people would be shocked to understand that safety/health,environmental testing of most chemicals, compounds etc. mostly takes place after the products are in use already. For much of what happens there is no "pre-market testing" beyond a cursory labeling that says everything is "compliant". There are companies that are more responsible than others about pre-market evaluation but most of the time the attitude is "don't go looking for problems and if a problem comes up you can deny you knew anything about it." Because the system gives some built in defense against claims of negligence/liability. In other words "If they don't make me do it then I'm not to blame for anything that happens." Even though from a scientific basis and the education and experience of those involved there was reason to be cautious. The exception to this is drugs and medical devices which do get a more thorough look before coming to market.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. All of those products

whether sold in bulk or direct-to-consumer do have warning labels (one of those pesky regulations) and MSDSs (Material Data Safety Sheets and as I just now discovered, those were renamed to "SDS" - Safety Data Sheets), although I expect there are bulk sellers that don't bother.

And at least in modern times for many substances, there *should be* safety equipment available for use when around or handling them to mitigate the hazards. But unfortunately that doesn't always happen - particularly on job sites (and even with product users eschewing the protective equipment).

[moniss]

13. Yes the MSDS

sheets are the fig leaf and what is required to be on them is only those things that have been identified as hazardous. That's where the pre-testing and definition game comes in. Doesn't have to be listed if it hasn't been tested and shown to fit the definition of hazardous. Too many times people think the label is a complete disclosure of everything that is in the container. It's not and one of the main problems for toxic exposure evaluation is that there is little evaluation ever done, partly because of complexity, of how mixtures of things perform. The toxicity of compounds in mixtures can be very elevated or be somewhat muted. But because concentrations of components varies and exposures and results are taken based on lab animals it gets murky to investigate. Despite the fact we know the problem exists.

The mixtures problem can best be demonstrated on toxic waste sites that were "drum recycling" facilities. They would bring in barrels from all sorts of industries, wash them out and then resell them. The "rinse" stream would just flow into earthen pits. Afterward they would be covered over. So when the EPA finds them and does testing to see what is there and what to do you have a soup. Testing and analysis technology limits us to identifying constituent chemicals and compounds and then enforcement/remediation is focused around reducing the levels of those covered under the remedial regulations to a certain level of those deemed to be the focus. So you get situations where lead may be 5 times higher than allowed and PCB's may be 10 times higher than allowed. So the focus goes there. Meanwhile the rest of the "soup" may still be toxic enough to cause great harm but it is not recognized and dealt with as such. The forever chemicals are an example. Some toxic wast sites got EPA action for lead and PCB's that were slightly elevated while the forever chemicals were present in super high concentrations and were ignored. Until we found out better. It's a story of being limited by science, by lawyers etc. but generally put it is foolish on the part of society to think that hundreds of new compounds can be created every year and put into use without having problems. Sadly, with the exception of explosive potential, the health/environmental ramifications are left to be discovered as they happen.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. Since you mentioned the recyled drums

I expect the same issue, on a larger scale, happens with the tanker trucks and tanker/hopper trains. And one can imagine just the transport of that stuff, if there happened to be a leak, can contaminate hundreds of miles or more.

I remember when this story had been posted about on DU - https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/up-says-chemical-lost-from-hopper-car-leaked-away-in-transit/

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143077116

[moniss]

15. Yes and an example

of how screwed up things can get. When you go to some old industrial cities/suburbs in the northeast and upper midwest of the US every now and then you come across an area where it's just grass and weeds as though housing etc. just skipped a spot. Many times these fairly big acreages are places where so much was dumped that nobody wants to own it and open up the can of worms of cleaning it up. Although the land will be on the "books" so to speak the real owners don't pay the taxes and by doing so try to "force" the local taxing authority to claim it for the taxes owed. But a smart municipality etc. will just let it ride.

Environmental law is that whoever is the legal owner at the time that contamination is discovered is held first in responsibility for cleanup costs. Naturally it immediately moves to lawyers and investigation of who did what, who sent what to be dumped etc. So the "new" owner may only be on the hook for minor amounts but in the end they have a property with a bad reputation, no matter how much cleaning is done, and there may be restrictions placed on doing anything with it except filling it over and growing grass for a soccer field or park etc. Nobody is making a profit doing that. So the properties languish.

A little known aspect of environmental law is also that language about ownership at the time the contamination is discovered. Discovered means proven by lab testing of environmental media such as soil, air and water. The law does not permit the EPA or state agency to take those samples in the absence of permission of the owner unless there is an event, a leak etc., that would give them probable cause. 4th Amendment etc. So some companies, the Buffalo area was famous for this, would just close up shop and lock the gates leaving everything standing. For decades. Part of that strategy is to let the contamination dissipate as much as possible either by migration or deterioration etc. One of the ways to thwart that strategy is to get permission from neighboring properties, not always easy to do, to place groundwater monitoring wells in the direction of the flow from the suspected property. You do your testing and get baseline readings for contaminants. Then you pull samples once a year and look at trends. If you see an increase you now have your probable cause to open an environmental inquiry and go to the property owner and request info and permission to test. If they refuse the subpoena and search warrant follow in short order. Then the fun begins.

So we all know the tragedies and society at large says "How could this be left to go on?" That's where the evidence of "lawyering" comes in that we discussed. It ends up that the book listing exemptions, exceptions, re-definitions, gray areas, contingencies etc. is nearly as thick as the CFR itself.

[Novara]

5. it's a shock coming from the 5th circuit

The corrupt SCOTUs has no legitimacy.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

8. When the Supreme Court is to the right of the extremist 5th Circuit Court

It’s time to seriously consider expanding the Supreme Court

[BumRushDaShow]

6. I heard of this whiplash decision

early this morning when I got up. LOL

I know last evening, Mexico announced that they would REFUSE any deported immigrants coming from the state of TX (except any who are already Mexican citizens).