Federal appeals court gives Texas a big WIN on immigration law blocked last week

Texas Governor Greg Abbott blasted out the news Monday morning that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals gave them a big victory this weekend.

The Court put on hold the lower court decision that blocked their immigration law that allowed them to arrest and jail illegal aliens entering the state.

This from therightscoop.com.

This is what he said:

Federal appeals court allows Texas immigration law to take effect. Law enforcement officers in Texas are now authorized to arrest & jail any illegal immigrants crossing the border.

Below is the news that Governor Abbott linked, which points out that the Fifth Circuit put their own ruling on hold for seven days to give The Regime a chance to appeal to the Supreme Court:

A federal appeals court granted a temporary stay of a lower court’s decision to block the enforcement of a controversial Texas immigration law, paving the way for it to go into effect this week if the Supreme Court doesn’t intervene.

Last week, a federal judge in Austin, Texas, blocked the state government from implementing Senate Bill 4, which would allow state law enforcement authorities to arrest and detain people they suspect of entering the country illegally.

Over the weekend, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of Ezra’s decision but put its ruling on hold for seven days, allowing time for the [The Regime] to go to the Supreme Court.

Judge David Alan Ezra wrote in his Thursday decision to halt the law that:

If allowed to proceed, SB 4 could open the door to each state passing its own version of immigration laws.

Texas appealed the ruling, with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott having said:

We will not back down in our fight to protect our state—and our nation—from [The Regime’s] border crisis.

The law remains blocked only until March 9 unless the Supreme Court keeps it on hold. It was originally set to go into effect March 5.

Final thoughts: Perhaps one day Constitutionality will not be subject to whims of interpretation. A conservative interpretation vs. a liberal or an activist interpretation could lead our nation in entirely different directions. Jurists should, I believe, be required to read and act upon everything as it is written. For example, “shall not be infringed” should never be dissected to create new meaning.

Meanwhile, however, there is much to be said for a Conservative-leaning Supreme Court.