Full 5th Circuit allows Texas to enforce SB 4 after standing ruling

🤠Texas SB 4, passed in 2023, allows state law enforcement to arrest people suspected of illegally entering or reentering Texas and allows state magistrate judges to order them returned to Mexico. A first offense is a misdemeanor with fines up to $2,000 and up to 180 days in jail; reentry violations carry fines up to $4,000 and up to one year in jail. The law sits at the center of a debate about whether states can enforce immigration law traditionally controlled by the federal government.

On April 24, 2026, the full 5th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 10-7 en banc to vacate the preliminary injunction blocking SB 4, allowing 🤠Texas to enforce the law. Circuit Judge JSJerry Smith wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Judge JWJennifer Walker Elrod and eight other judges. The court ruled that nonprofit organizations (Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and American Gateways) and El Paso County lacked Article III standing because they had only 'voluntarily incurred costs' advocating for immigrants. That spending wasn't a concrete injury courts recognize.

The 5th Circuit's standing-based ruling means the court deliberately avoided deciding whether SB 4 is constitutional. By dismissing the case on procedural standing grounds, the court left the underlying preemption question unanswered. This approach of using standing to avoid the merits allowed SB 4 to go into effect without the court ever examining whether it conflicts with federal immigration law.

The dissenting seven judges argued that plaintiffs did have standing and that SB 4 likely violates federal immigration law. Judge SHStephen Higginson warned that the law 'interferes with the federal scheme addressing who may be removed, how and to where' and contains no asylum protections. The 10-7 split shows the court was deeply divided on whether 🤠Texas can step into federal immigration enforcement authority.

Federal immigration law has been a federal-only power for 150 years under Supreme Court precedent. In 🌵Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that states can't enforce immigration laws that conflict with federal authority. 🤠Texas SB 4 tests this precedent by creating state crimes for illegal entry and state-ordered deportations. Those powers have traditionally belonged to federal immigration agencies ICE and CBP.

The Biden administration filed its own lawsuit against SB 4 in January 2024, arguing it was preempted by federal immigration law. But in March 2025, after Donald Trump took office, the federal government withdrew its challenge. Without the federal government as a plaintiff, the remaining plaintiffs faced much higher barriers to proving standing under the Supreme Court's precedent in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

What counts as a concrete injury for standing purposes is now contested. 🤠Texas argued that nonprofit organizations spending money to help immigrants don't count as legally cognizable injuries. The 5th Circuit majority agreed, but the dissenters argued that interference with an organization's core mission should qualify. This disagreement reflects a broader split about who can challenge laws in federal court.

Attorney General KPKen Paxton called the ruling 'a major win for public safety and law and order.' But civil rights groups argued the procedural standing decision masked a broader constitutional problem. ACLU lawyer CWCody Wofsy noted that every court to examine similar state immigration laws has found them unconstitutional. That question now goes to the Supreme Court, where the final word will be decided.