Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has joined 22 state attorneys general asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to overturn a ruling that blocked Texas’s 2023 immigration law, Senate Bill 4 (S.B. 4). The coalition filed the request in early August 2025, arguing that states need authority to act when federal enforcement falls short.
The immediate legal posture
A three-judge Fifth Circuit panel issued a decision in July 2025 keeping S.B. 4 on hold. The panel ruled 2–1, finding the Texas law conflicts with federal immigration law and concluding that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility—not a state one.
What S.B. 4 would do if unblocked
- Make unlawful border crossing a state crime
- First offense: Class B misdemeanor (up to six months in jail).
- Repeat offenses: Second-degree felony (up to 20 years in prison).
- Allow Texas judges to drop charges if a person returns to Mexico, or to require transport to a port of entry for removal after conviction.
- Permit state courts to order people who crossed unlawfully to leave the country, a provision critics say intrudes on federal powers.
Why Oklahoma joined the fight
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond says federal immigration enforcement is not working and is straining state resources—hospitals, schools, and law enforcement. He argues that states should have authority to protect their communities when federal action does not match on-the-ground needs. The multistate brief asks the full Fifth Circuit to rehear the case and reverse the injunction.
Federal government and advocates push back
The federal government and immigrant-advocacy organizations argue S.B. 4 violates the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law supreme. Their key points:
– Immigration is a national system; state criminal penalties and removal orders would interfere with federal processes.
– Groups such as ACLU of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project sued and won injunctions against S.B. 4.
– Critics warn of racial profiling, family separation, and harm to immigrant communities.
“State criminal penalties and removal orders would interfere with federal decisions and procedures,” say government and advocacy briefs.
Current status of the law
- S.B. 4 remains blocked while litigation continues—Texas cannot charge people under the law or use state courts to deport individuals.
- The coalition’s filing seeks en banc review (review by the full Fifth Circuit), which could alter the legal landscape across the circuit.
- If the full court takes the case, its ruling may shape the scope of future state immigration laws.
Key legal questions before the courts
- Can a state create its own crimes for border crossing without clashing with federal statutes that already govern entry and removal?
- Do state court orders to remove people conflict with federal removal procedures, which rely on federal agencies and immigration courts?
- How does long-standing Supreme Court precedent—nearly 150 years treating immigration as a federal responsibility—apply to a state-led enforcement plan?
Why this matters beyond Texas
If the coalition prevails, states like Oklahoma and Texas could gain broader authority to pass and enforce immigration laws separate from federal agencies. Possible consequences:
– Creation of a patchwork system with differing rules and penalties by state.
– Effects on migrants, families, employers, and local police depending on where they live or work.
Supporters argue state action fills gaps when federal enforcement is limited, citing public safety and resource strain. Opponents warn state-level systems will cause confusion, civil-rights problems, and conflicts with federal law. As noted by VisaVerge.com, similar state measures historically have often faced court challenges limiting their reach.
How communities could feel the impact
- Immigrant families
- More arrests and potential state detention.
- Increased fear of reporting crimes or seeking medical help, affecting family stability and safety.
- Employers
- Hiring could become more complex if workers face state charges tied to immigration status, impacting sectors such as agriculture, construction, and services.
- Local police
- Officers might be asked to enforce state immigration provisions, diverting resources and altering community trust.
- State budgets
- Supporters claim tougher laws reduce costs; opponents warn litigation, detention, and enforcement needs can increase expenses.
The coalition’s core claim
The attorneys general say federal enforcement gaps force states to deal with consequences—from hospital strain to jail capacity. Their brief frames S.B. 4-style laws as tools to protect residents when federal approaches do not address local realities. They ask the full court to reconsider the panel decision and allow Texas to enforce its law.
Opponents’ counterargument
Advocacy groups and the federal government insist federal immigration law “occupies the field.” Their main concerns:
– Congress established detailed rules for arrest, detention, and removal that rely on federal officers and immigration courts, not state judges.
– Risks of racial profiling, wrongful arrests of citizens or lawful residents, and community fear that undermines public safety.
What to watch next
- Full Fifth Circuit review (en banc) — the court may rehear the case; the decision could maintain the injunction or allow parts of S.B. 4 to proceed.
- Possible Supreme Court review — depending on the Fifth Circuit outcome, the case could reach the Supreme Court if it raises significant federal-precedence questions.
- Other states’ actions — a favorable ruling for Texas could prompt similar bills elsewhere; a rejection could constrain state attempts to mirror federal immigration crimes or removal orders.
Practical guidance for affected people
- Know your rights: If stopped by police, you have the right to remain silent and to ask for a lawyer. Carry any valid ID or immigration documents you have.
- Seek legal help: Contact a qualified attorney if you face criminal charges or immigration detention. Nonprofits and legal aid groups can offer support.
- Keep documents safe: Maintain copies of passports, work permits, court papers, and notices from immigration authorities. Store digital copies in secure cloud storage.
For official case updates and filings, check the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit website—look under “opinions and orders” and docket entries.
Background and timeline
- 2023: Texas passes S.B. 4 amid higher border encounters and calls for tougher state action.
- The Biden administration sues to block the law; litigation from local governments and rights groups continues.
- July 2025: A Fifth Circuit panel upholds the injunction, citing conflict with federal law and reaffirming federal primacy.
- August 2025: Oklahoma joins 22 attorneys general urging the full court to overturn the panel ruling.
The bigger picture
This dispute tests how much freedom states have to create criminal penalties and removal orders that overlap with federal immigration systems. It highlights daily realities for border communities, interior states like Oklahoma, and migrant families who face changing policies and court decisions that can shift quickly.
Actionable takeaway: Stay informed, track court updates, and seek legal advice if directly affected. Employers should review hiring compliance and consult counsel before changing workplace policies. Families should prepare emergency plans, including contact lists and document folders, while the injunction remains in place and legal developments continue.
This Article in a Nutshell
