Chief Judge Priscilla Richman detailed how Texas's criminal immigration law conflicts with federal law, saying it's likely a "quintessential" case for federal preemption.
So under Oldham’s jurisprudence, we have to wait before invalidating a patently unconstitutional criminal law until some poor sucker is first charged under the law and only then should the courts take up the matter. Sucks for the guy languishing in jail (or dumped at the border) while the case makes its way through the judicial process, but needs must.
Yes, and Texas intends "dumped at the border" to happen as soon as possible. So the poor sucker should feel free to file in any American court on the other side of the border? How does this actually work, other than "poorly"?
Thanks for the full account here. What a great example of facts, law, precedent, and good sense governing a judicial ruling. We can only hope it survives judicial review by a Supreme Court apparently preoccupied with political agendas. The case seems clear enough that it should need no such review, but so did (and does) the extravagant claim of presidential immunity for a criminal defendant who happened once to be president.
I feel badly for you, that you had to read Oldham's dissent in order to write this excellent post. I became stupider, just from the summary of his reasoning.
Good, glad to hear it! As it should be. Immigration is how the majority of us got here. We cannot support using "ciminal immigrations" as a trope to injure people to be rid of them.
'“The dissenting opinion’s assertion that S.B. 4 ‘has no impact whatsoever on which aliens Congress chooses to admit’ is simply incorrect,” Richman wrote.'
This was THE statement that said it all.
That dissent was a slog to go through, but I thought Richman did a decent job and only allowed politics to intrude twice, and only in a minor way. So unusual for anything from the 5th nowadays.
Of course, Judge Ezra's opinion was also well argued but you won't find any Republican-appointed judge on the 5th saying so.
Excellent analysis! Thanks. I will cite to you tonight in my newsletter. Thanks for the quick turnaround, as well!
Thanks!
So under Oldham’s jurisprudence, we have to wait before invalidating a patently unconstitutional criminal law until some poor sucker is first charged under the law and only then should the courts take up the matter. Sucks for the guy languishing in jail (or dumped at the border) while the case makes its way through the judicial process, but needs must.
What a hack.
Yours was a good summation of Oldham's entire argument.
Yes, and Texas intends "dumped at the border" to happen as soon as possible. So the poor sucker should feel free to file in any American court on the other side of the border? How does this actually work, other than "poorly"?
I believe you missed a word here:
but particularly when those rulings are affecting the enforcement national and state laws
should be
but particularly when those rulings are affecting the enforcement _of_ national and state laws
Fixed!
Thanks for the full account here. What a great example of facts, law, precedent, and good sense governing a judicial ruling. We can only hope it survives judicial review by a Supreme Court apparently preoccupied with political agendas. The case seems clear enough that it should need no such review, but so did (and does) the extravagant claim of presidential immunity for a criminal defendant who happened once to be president.
Abbott and his cronies are overdue for a smack down.
Thank you Chris for the
breakdown. It helped this
non lawyer understand the
nuts and bolts of precedent;
Federal vs state in
immigration law where
S. B.4 is concerned.
I feel badly for you, that you had to read Oldham's dissent in order to write this excellent post. I became stupider, just from the summary of his reasoning.
Good, glad to hear it! As it should be. Immigration is how the majority of us got here. We cannot support using "ciminal immigrations" as a trope to injure people to be rid of them.
Ha! The DOJ just slapped this decision down in the buoy case https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172749163/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172749163.107.0.pdf
'“The dissenting opinion’s assertion that S.B. 4 ‘has no impact whatsoever on which aliens Congress chooses to admit’ is simply incorrect,” Richman wrote.'
This was THE statement that said it all.
That dissent was a slog to go through, but I thought Richman did a decent job and only allowed politics to intrude twice, and only in a minor way. So unusual for anything from the 5th nowadays.
Of course, Judge Ezra's opinion was also well argued but you won't find any Republican-appointed judge on the 5th saying so.
Excellent write-up.