(TEXAS) — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is again weighing whether Texas can run a parallel, state-driven immigration enforcement system under SB4, a question that directly affects whether local arrests and state convictions could trigger judge-ordered “returns” to a foreign country.
While the Fifth Circuit has not issued its en banc ruling yet, the practical takeaway for immigrants, mixed-status families, and defense counsel is immediate: enforcement authority remains uncertain while the case is litigated, and outcomes may turn on whether courts treat SB4 as preempted by federal immigration law under the Supremacy Clause.
SB4 litigation is fast-moving. Whether the law can be enforced may change quickly based on injunctions, stays, and new appellate orders. Speak with an immigration attorney before taking action that could affect your status.
1) Overview of SB4 and current appellate status
Texas Senate Bill 4 (SB4) is a state immigration-enforcement framework that creates state crimes tied to border entry and adds a state-court “removal” mechanism. Supporters frame it as a response to border security concerns. Opponents argue it intrudes into a field reserved to the federal government.
As of January 22, 2026, the case is before the Fifth Circuit for an en banc rehearing. “En banc” means more judges than a typical three-judge panel hear the case. In most federal circuits, it signals the court considers the issue exceptionally important and can reflect internal disagreement with an earlier panel ruling.
This posture matters because an en banc decision becomes binding Fifth Circuit precedent. That precedent would govern federal courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi unless the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes.
Procedurally, a prior Fifth Circuit panel ruled 2–1 that SB4 was unconstitutional. Key dates in that path include March 18, 2025, July 4, 2025, and January 22, 2026.
What to watch next is not only the merits. Readers should also watch whether any injunction remains in place, whether it is narrowed, and whether the Supreme Court is asked to step in. On the ground, “can it be enforced today” often turns on those interim orders.
2) Key facts and policy details
SB4 was passed in 2023 with a stated purpose of deterring unlawful border entry into Texas. Its core mechanism is state criminal enforcement tied to entering Texas from a foreign nation outside a lawful port of entry.
SB4 criminalizes certain entries and then layers escalating consequences for repeat conduct. The first offense is treated less severely than later offenses. That escalation is a central feature of the law’s deterrence design.
A second, distinct feature is the state removal order concept. After a conviction, a Texas judge or magistrate may order a person to “return to the foreign nation from which the person entered.” In practice, this resembles a state-court command to leave, backed by state criminal process.
That matters because the United States already has a federal removal system. Federal “removal” happens through DHS and, in many cases, immigration courts within EOIR. State criminal courts do not ordinarily decide removability or grant immigration relief.
Two systems can also create two sets of consequences. A state conviction may later be used by federal authorities in immigration proceedings. Depending on the offense, it can trigger inadmissibility or deportability under the INA. It can also affect bond, detention, and discretionary relief.
BIA case law illustrates how heavily immigration consequences can depend on the existence and validity of state convictions. For example, the Board has addressed when a vacated conviction still counts for immigration purposes. See Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003).
A state criminal case can become an immigration case. Do not plead guilty without advice from both criminal defense counsel and an immigration attorney.
3) Legal timeline and standing
A key reason SB4 remains in court is that private-party plaintiffs continued the challenge after the federal government stepped back. The remaining plaintiffs include El Paso County, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and American Gateways.
That leads to a threshold issue: standing. Standing asks whether a plaintiff has a concrete injury that a court can remedy. Counties may claim operational and budget harms. Organizations may claim diversion of resources and harm to clients.
The Department of Justice discontinued the federal government’s suit on March 18, 2025. That did not automatically end the litigation. When private plaintiffs have standing, their case may continue even if the federal government exits.
The earlier Fifth Circuit panel decision, issued July 4, 2025, held 2–1 that SB4 was unconstitutional. The panel reasoned that SB4 displaced federal discretion in removal, which Congress vested in the federal executive.
En banc review, held January 22, 2026, can affirm that reasoning, narrow it, or reject it. It can also reshape what kinds of state immigration laws are permissible in the Fifth Circuit.
Finally, readers should translate court terms into lived reality:
- Enjoined generally means a court order blocks enforcement.
- Stayed often means that block is paused.
- Effective enforcement is what local agencies may do in practice without risking contempt of court.
Even brief changes to an injunction can change arrest patterns, charging decisions, and plea bargaining.
4) Context, significance, and constitutional framing
The legal core is the Supremacy Clause and federal preemption. Federal preemption means that when Congress occupies a field, or when state law conflicts with federal law, state law must yield.
Immigration is an area where federal primacy is strong. Courts often ask whether a state law:
- Regulates in a field reserved to the federal government, or
- Conflicts with federal objectives or enforcement discretion.
A frequent reference point is the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States (2012), which limited state immigration enforcement when it intruded into federal priorities.
SB4 raises harder questions because it does not merely assist federal enforcement. It creates state crimes tied to entry and adds a state “return” order that resembles removal.
An en banc decision matters beyond Texas because it may influence how other states draft similar laws. Legislatures may see a roadmap if SB4 survives. They may also see red lines if it does not.
A Fifth Circuit ruling could also affect cooperation incentives. Local policing agencies may face pressure to become front-line immigration screeners. That can change community trust, reporting of crimes, and local detention practices.
The enforceability of SB4 is not the same as the existence of federal immigration authority. DHS and ICE authority continues regardless of SB4, but SB4 could add state criminal exposure.
5) Impact on individuals and communities
Civil rights groups argue SB4 could intensify profiling allegations. That risk is not limited to any one agency. It can arise when officers use appearance, language, or neighborhood as proxies for immigration status.
If state charges increase, households may face cascading harm. Even short jail stays can disrupt work and childcare. It can also destabilize housing if rent goes unpaid.
If a state “return” order is entered after conviction, families may experience abrupt separation. That can happen even where a person has pending immigration options, such as asylum under INA § 208 or withholding under INA § 241(b)(3). It can also complicate access to counsel.
The SB4 dispute is also unfolding amid broader enforcement efforts referenced by advocates, including “Operation PARRIS” and “Operation Metro Surge.” Public reporting has described heightened enforcement presence. Details can be difficult to verify across jurisdictions.
Community members who fear improper stops should consider documenting encounters. Record names, badge numbers if available, and the sequence of events. Preserve charging paperwork and court dates.
Help can come from local legal aid, nonprofit immigration organizations, and private counsel. Individuals should avoid relying on rumors or social media summaries of court orders.
6) Official sources and statements
Official messaging can shape public expectations, even when it does not directly control state criminal law.
A DHS spokesperson statement was reported on January 21, 2026. The statement addressed ICE funding debates and enforcement posture. Readers should treat such statements as messaging, not as a binding legal directive on SB4’s enforceability.
USCIS also published an end-of-year review dated December 22, 2025. USCIS highlighted “enhanced screening and vetting” and “increased coordination” with DHS enforcement partners. That kind of language typically signals operational focus. It does not itself change statutory eligibility for benefits.
In immigration practice, “enhanced screening” often means more identity checks, more document review, and more inter-agency data sharing. “Coordination” can mean referrals, information sharing, and joint initiatives, depending on policy.
To confirm what is official, check primary sources. For USCIS, use the USCIS newsroom at USCIS Newsroom. For DHS, use DHS press releases.
If Texas maintains SB4 updates, a state portal has been identified. State postings can be useful, but they do not replace federal court orders.
Deadline reminder: If you or a family member is charged under any law that may have immigration consequences, ask for an immigration advisal immediately. Early decisions can affect relief eligibility later.
7) Official government sources and portals
USCIS Newsroom (uscis.gov): Best for benefits-related updates, processing announcements, and official USCIS statements. See USCIS Newsroom.
Verification tip: confirm domains end in .gov and match the agency name. Avoid lookalike sites and reposted screenshots.
Practical takeaways for immigrants and practitioners
- Assume uncertainty until the en banc opinion lands. Enforcement may hinge on injunction scope and stays.
- Treat any SB4-related arrest as immigration-sensitive. Coordinate criminal and immigration counsel before pleas.
- Track Fifth Circuit developments closely. The ruling may set the operating rule for Texas and the region.
- Do not rely on generalized assurances. Eligibility for relief under the INA is fact-specific and jurisdiction-dependent.
Given the stakes, anyone potentially affected by SB4, including U.S. citizens in mixed-status families, should consult a qualified immigration attorney. That includes people with prior removal orders, pending asylum claims, or old criminal cases.
| Resources | Link |
|---|---|
| AILA Lawyer Referral | https://www.aila.org/find-a-lawyer |
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
