

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Immigrants pick through coils of razor wire after crossing the Rio Grande from Mexico on March 17, 2024 in Eagle Pass, Texas.
"Allowing this law to be implemented as the case makes its way through the legal process needlessly puts people's lives at risk," said one campaigner. "We remain committed to the fight to permanently overturn S.B. 4."
Update:
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday night issued a decision that put the Texas law back on hold, blocking once again enactment of legislation that would allow local and state law enforcement to detain or deport migrants believed to have crossed the border illegally.
Earlier:
Rights advocates on Tuesday blasted the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court for allowing Texas to enforce Senate Bill 4, a contested law empowering local and state authorities to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants.
"Today's decision is disappointing and threatens the integrity of our nation's immigration laws and bedrock principles of due process," said Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "But it is only preliminary and turned on the specific posture of the case. We'll continue to fight against S.B. 4 until it is struck down once and for all."
After Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill in December, the national and state ACLU joined Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) in filing a lawsuit on behalf of American Gateways, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and El Paso County. The U.S. Department of Justice has also argued that "it is flatly inconsistent with federal law in all its applications, and it is therefore preempted on its face."
U.S. District Judge David Ezra last month issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect while it is challenged on constitutional grounds. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay, which the justices left in place on Tuesday.
In a concurring opinion that Law Dork's Chris Geidner called "embarrassingly absurd," Justice Amy Coney Barrett—joined by fellow right-winger Brett Kavanaugh—highlighted that this was just a stay decision and they weren't yet weighing in on the merits.
The high court's three liberal members—Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor rejected—dissented. Kagan briefly explained why she would not have allowed S.B. 4 to take effect while Sotomayor, joined by Jackon, penned a lengthier dissent warning that the majority decision "invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement."
Those behind the ongoing legal battle against S.B. 4 issued similar warnings on Tuesday. Adriana Piñon, legal director at the ACLU of Texas, declared that "the implementation of this unconstitutional and extreme anti-immigrant law will likely be disastrous for both Texans and our legal system."
Tami Goodlette, director of TCRP's Beyond Borders Program, said that "allowing this law to be implemented as the case makes its way through the legal process needlessly puts people's lives at risk. Everyone, no matter if you have called Texas home for decades or just got here yesterday, deserves to feel safe and have the basic right of due process."
"We remain committed to the fight to permanently overturn S.B. 4 to show the nation that no state has the power to overtake federal immigration authority," she pledged.
The law's other challengers also expressed their disappointment and stressed that they remain determined to defeat S.B. 4.
"While today's Supreme Court decision is another setback for immigrants and refugees, we will continue to advocate for civil rights and dignity for people fleeing persecution," said American Gateways co-executive director Rebecca Lightsey. "We all recognize that our current immigration system is broken. It's past time to take a look at realistic solutions that will help not only those coming and seeking protection, but also the communities that are receiving them."
Jennifer Babaie, director of advocacy and legal services Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, was also undeterred, saying that "make no mistake, this decision does not change our commitment to this fight."
"Everyone, regardless of race or immigration status, has the freedom to move and the freedom to thrive," Babaie added. "We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to ensure this anti-immigrant and unconstitutional law is struck down for good, and Texans are protected from its inherent discrimination."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Update:
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday night issued a decision that put the Texas law back on hold, blocking once again enactment of legislation that would allow local and state law enforcement to detain or deport migrants believed to have crossed the border illegally.
Earlier:
Rights advocates on Tuesday blasted the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court for allowing Texas to enforce Senate Bill 4, a contested law empowering local and state authorities to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants.
"Today's decision is disappointing and threatens the integrity of our nation's immigration laws and bedrock principles of due process," said Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "But it is only preliminary and turned on the specific posture of the case. We'll continue to fight against S.B. 4 until it is struck down once and for all."
After Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill in December, the national and state ACLU joined Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) in filing a lawsuit on behalf of American Gateways, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and El Paso County. The U.S. Department of Justice has also argued that "it is flatly inconsistent with federal law in all its applications, and it is therefore preempted on its face."
U.S. District Judge David Ezra last month issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect while it is challenged on constitutional grounds. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay, which the justices left in place on Tuesday.
In a concurring opinion that Law Dork's Chris Geidner called "embarrassingly absurd," Justice Amy Coney Barrett—joined by fellow right-winger Brett Kavanaugh—highlighted that this was just a stay decision and they weren't yet weighing in on the merits.
The high court's three liberal members—Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor rejected—dissented. Kagan briefly explained why she would not have allowed S.B. 4 to take effect while Sotomayor, joined by Jackon, penned a lengthier dissent warning that the majority decision "invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement."
Those behind the ongoing legal battle against S.B. 4 issued similar warnings on Tuesday. Adriana Piñon, legal director at the ACLU of Texas, declared that "the implementation of this unconstitutional and extreme anti-immigrant law will likely be disastrous for both Texans and our legal system."
Tami Goodlette, director of TCRP's Beyond Borders Program, said that "allowing this law to be implemented as the case makes its way through the legal process needlessly puts people's lives at risk. Everyone, no matter if you have called Texas home for decades or just got here yesterday, deserves to feel safe and have the basic right of due process."
"We remain committed to the fight to permanently overturn S.B. 4 to show the nation that no state has the power to overtake federal immigration authority," she pledged.
The law's other challengers also expressed their disappointment and stressed that they remain determined to defeat S.B. 4.
"While today's Supreme Court decision is another setback for immigrants and refugees, we will continue to advocate for civil rights and dignity for people fleeing persecution," said American Gateways co-executive director Rebecca Lightsey. "We all recognize that our current immigration system is broken. It's past time to take a look at realistic solutions that will help not only those coming and seeking protection, but also the communities that are receiving them."
Jennifer Babaie, director of advocacy and legal services Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, was also undeterred, saying that "make no mistake, this decision does not change our commitment to this fight."
"Everyone, regardless of race or immigration status, has the freedom to move and the freedom to thrive," Babaie added. "We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to ensure this anti-immigrant and unconstitutional law is struck down for good, and Texans are protected from its inherent discrimination."
Update:
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday night issued a decision that put the Texas law back on hold, blocking once again enactment of legislation that would allow local and state law enforcement to detain or deport migrants believed to have crossed the border illegally.
Earlier:
Rights advocates on Tuesday blasted the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court for allowing Texas to enforce Senate Bill 4, a contested law empowering local and state authorities to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants.
"Today's decision is disappointing and threatens the integrity of our nation's immigration laws and bedrock principles of due process," said Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "But it is only preliminary and turned on the specific posture of the case. We'll continue to fight against S.B. 4 until it is struck down once and for all."
After Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill in December, the national and state ACLU joined Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) in filing a lawsuit on behalf of American Gateways, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and El Paso County. The U.S. Department of Justice has also argued that "it is flatly inconsistent with federal law in all its applications, and it is therefore preempted on its face."
U.S. District Judge David Ezra last month issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect while it is challenged on constitutional grounds. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay, which the justices left in place on Tuesday.
In a concurring opinion that Law Dork's Chris Geidner called "embarrassingly absurd," Justice Amy Coney Barrett—joined by fellow right-winger Brett Kavanaugh—highlighted that this was just a stay decision and they weren't yet weighing in on the merits.
The high court's three liberal members—Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor rejected—dissented. Kagan briefly explained why she would not have allowed S.B. 4 to take effect while Sotomayor, joined by Jackon, penned a lengthier dissent warning that the majority decision "invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement."
Those behind the ongoing legal battle against S.B. 4 issued similar warnings on Tuesday. Adriana Piñon, legal director at the ACLU of Texas, declared that "the implementation of this unconstitutional and extreme anti-immigrant law will likely be disastrous for both Texans and our legal system."
Tami Goodlette, director of TCRP's Beyond Borders Program, said that "allowing this law to be implemented as the case makes its way through the legal process needlessly puts people's lives at risk. Everyone, no matter if you have called Texas home for decades or just got here yesterday, deserves to feel safe and have the basic right of due process."
"We remain committed to the fight to permanently overturn S.B. 4 to show the nation that no state has the power to overtake federal immigration authority," she pledged.
The law's other challengers also expressed their disappointment and stressed that they remain determined to defeat S.B. 4.
"While today's Supreme Court decision is another setback for immigrants and refugees, we will continue to advocate for civil rights and dignity for people fleeing persecution," said American Gateways co-executive director Rebecca Lightsey. "We all recognize that our current immigration system is broken. It's past time to take a look at realistic solutions that will help not only those coming and seeking protection, but also the communities that are receiving them."
Jennifer Babaie, director of advocacy and legal services Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, was also undeterred, saying that "make no mistake, this decision does not change our commitment to this fight."
"Everyone, regardless of race or immigration status, has the freedom to move and the freedom to thrive," Babaie added. "We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to ensure this anti-immigrant and unconstitutional law is struck down for good, and Texans are protected from its inherent discrimination."