A federal judge has once again blocked major portions of Texas’ border enforcement law Senate Bill 4, stopping the state from enforcing its new “reentry” crime and deportation process against noncitizens with prior removal histories—just as those provisions were set to take effect.
The lawsuit was brought by the ACLU of Texas alongside other left-wing organizations on behalf of two Honduran nationals living in Austin. Identified only as L.M.L. and K.G.S., the two individuals have previously been deported or entered the country illegally but now have tentative legal status and U.S.-citizen or lawful-resident children.
They argued that SB 4 put them at immediate risk of arrest, prosecution, detention, and forced return, and the judge agreed they faced a credible threat of enforcement and could sue before being picked up.
Passed by the Texas Legislature in 2023, SB 4 makes it a state crime to enter Texas illegally from a foreign country outside an official port of entry and gives state and local law enforcement authority to arrest those accused of doing so.
In a 78‑page order, U.S. District Judge David Ezra ruled that Texas cannot enforce SB 4’s state reentry offense, the felony for disobeying a state “removal” order, or the provisions that let state judges order noncitizens sent back to the country they entered from, because those measures trespass into a field the federal government exclusively controls.
He emphasized that federal law already creates a dense system of illegal entry and reentry crimes and a single, nationwide process for deciding who can be removed and where they can be sent, and that Texas cannot attach its own parallel penalties and deportation pipeline on top of that.
Ezra wrote that SB 4 would undercut federal discretion over when and how to prosecute immigration violations, interfere with asylum and other protection claims, and complicate U.S. relations with Mexico by having Texas unilaterally push illegal aliens across the border regardless of their actual country of origin.
Texas has leaned on a declaration of invasion theory, arguing that unprecedented illegal immigration allows the state to “engage in war” and sidestep normal constitutional limits. Ezra flatly rejected that argument, calling SB 4 a standard criminal enforcement regime rather than any genuine exercise of war powers.
The judge noted that even with a new presidential administration and increased border security, Texas is still invoking the same invasion rationale, underscoring that SB 4 functions as a permanent alternative immigration system, not a temporary emergency response.
Ezra’s order did not just protect the two named plaintiffs, but provisionally certified a class covering all noncitizens who enter, attempt to enter, or are found in Texas after prior removal or an outstanding removal order, and extended the injunction to that entire group. That means DPS and other state actors are barred from using SB 4’s reentry and removal provisions against thousands of people statewide while the case proceeds.
Judge Ezra declined the state’s request to pause his ruling while it appeals, saying Texas is unlikely to win on the merits and that allowing SB 4 to operate in the meantime would risk irreversible harm under a law he believes is likely unconstitutional.
This is the second case against Texas’ border enforcement law, which has been tied up in court since its passage in 2023. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a district court injunction last month, but did not settle the underlying constitutional issues, instead finding that the original plaintiffs lacked standing—prompting left-wing activists to refile with a new legal strategy.
