Paxton wants Supreme Court reversal on immigration, giving Texas more sway in border fight

Attorney General Ken Paxton is pushing to overturn a key U.S. Supreme Court decision that hamstrings states from enforcing federal immigration law, a move that could dramatically expand Texas’ offensive against President Joe Biden’s policies at the southern border. Paxton has said for months that he is looking for a legal path to challenge the 2012 ruling in the case, known as Arizona v. United States. At a committee hearing last week, First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster — Paxton’s top deputy — encouraged state legislators to consider passing laws that could spur a legal case “so that once again Texas could be enabled through federal law to enforce immigration.”

Under the Biden administration, the Republican attorney general has emerged as a chief antagonist on immigration, using a barrage of lawsuits to kill several of the president’s high-profile policies and force the reinstatement of Trump-era measures such as the “Remain in Mexico” program. Gov. Greg Abbott and other Republican state officials have also spearheaded construction of a wall covering portions of the U.S.-Mexico border and sent thousands of state police and soldiers to apprehend migrants in South Texas — an approach that critics and defense attorneys argue is already blurring the line between legitimate enforcement and state overreach. The precedent established in the Arizona case has been among the biggest obstacles for Texas Republicans, limiting the scope of their state-sponsored border crackdown and serving as the legal justification behind a sweeping attempt to toss out misdemeanor charges against hundreds of migrants arrested under the governor’s “catch-and-jail” program. The Arizona decision also underpinned a Biden administration lawsuit last year that blocked the Texas governor’s order for state troopers to pull over drivers who they suspect of transporting migrants. Republican leaders have been careful to insist they are not enforcing federal law themselves since states are generally prevented from taking such action under the 2012 decision.