Texas' anti-sanctuary cities law (there should be a "so-called" in there somewhere) is back in court today, this time being reviewed by a three-judge panel of U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
The latest day in court comes after a federal judge issued a complex opinion in City of El Cenizo, et. al. v. State of Texas, et. al. Per Julián Aguilar's coverage in The Texas Tribune:
U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia in late August halted several parts of the bill, including the provision that requires jail officials to honor all detainers. He also blocked other sections that prohibit local entities from pursuing “a pattern or practice that 'materially limits' the enforcement of immigration laws” and another that prohibits “assisting or cooperating” with federal immigration officers as reasonable or necessary. He did not block the part of the bill that says police chiefs, sheriffs and other department heads cannot forbid officers from questioning a person’s immigration status.
The Tribune's Brief tells us that Julián has drawn the hard duty of live tweeting from New Orleans, so watch his Twitter feed for updates.
The UT/Texas Tribune Poll asked about two of the key provisions of SB4 that have been subjects of the litigation under discussion today – the so-called "show me your papers provision" that preserve law enforcement officers' option to ask for proof of citizenship during a legal detainment, and the requirement that local authorities' cooperate and comply with federal immigration law, including detainer requests by Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE).
| category | column-1 |
|---|---|
| Strongly support | 22% |
| Somewhat support | 15% |
| Somewhat oppose | 9% |
| Strongly oppose | 41% |
| Don't know | 13% |
| category | Democrat | Independent | Republican |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly support | 41% | 12% | 6% |
| Somewhat support | 24% | 18% | 7% |
| Somewhat oppose | 9% | 13% | 8% |
| Strongly oppose | 10% | 35% | 72% |
| Don't know | 16% | 22% | 7% |
| category | White | Black | Hispanic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly support | 18% | 25% | 28% |
| Somewhat support | 12% | 16% | 25% |
| Somewhat oppose | 8% | 15% | 10% |
| Strongly oppose | 53% | 15% | 22% |
| Don't know | 8% | 30% | 15% |
| category | Total |
|---|---|
| Strongly support | 44% |
| Somewhat support | 14% |
| Somewhat oppose | 14% |
| Strongly oppose | 19% |
| Don't know/no opinion | 9% |
| category | Democrat | Independent | Republican |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly support | 11% | 52% | 72% |
| Somewhat support | 12% | 16% | 16% |
| Somewhat oppose | 27% | 11% | 5% |
| Strongly oppose | 38% | 10% | 3% |
| Don't know/no opinion | 13% | 10% | 4% |
| category | White | Black | Hispanic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly support | 53% | 25% | 31% |
| Somewhat support | 14% | 20% | 13% |
| Somewhat oppose | 11% | 21% | 18% |
| Strongly oppose | 15% | 17% | 30% |
| Don't know/no opinion | 7% | 17% | 9% |
| category | Total |
|---|---|
| Local law enforcement agencies decide policies for their officers | 45% |
| Officers should always be able to question a person’s immigration status | 44% |
| Don't know/no opinion | 11% |
| category | Democrat | Independent | Republican |
|---|---|---|---|
| Local law enforcement agencies decide policies for their officers | 70% | 42% | 26% |
| Officers should always be able to question a person’s immigration status | 15% | 51% | 69% |
| Don't know/no opinion | 15% | 8% | 6% |
| category | White | Black | Hispanic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Local law enforcement agencies decide policies for their officers | 39% | 55% | 56% |
| Officers should always be able to question a person’s immigration status | 54% | 26% | 29% |
| Don't know/no opinion | 7% | 19% | 16% |