Background - Texas enacted SB4 (2017) to prohibit "sanctuary" policies: it bars local entities from adopting, enforcing, or endorsing policies that "prohibit or materially limit" immigration enforcement; enumerates specific prohibitions (status inquiries, sharing info, assisting federal officers); and imposes civil and criminal penalties enforceable by the Texas Attorney General. - SB4 also added an ICE-detainer mandate (Tex. Crim. Proc. art. 2.251) requiring local agencies to comply with ICE detainer requests (Form I-247A) and hold individuals up to 48 hours unless shown proof of citizenship or lawful status. - Plaintiffs (cities, counties, officials, advocacy groups) brought a pre-enforcement suit claiming: (I) federal preemption, (II) First/14th Amendment problems with the "endorse" ban, (III) Fourth Amendment invalidity of the detainer mandate, and (IV) vagueness of "materially limits." The district court granted a preliminary injunction in part; the State appealed and plaintiffs cross-appealed. - The Fifth Circuit reviewed preemption (field and conflict), First Amendment overbreadth/viewpoint/vagueness of the "endorse" term, Fourth Amendment facial challenge to the detainer mandate, and facial vagueness of "materially limits." - The court affirmed all challenged provisions except it enjoined application of the "endorse" prohibition to elected officials (severing that application); it upheld the assistance/information/status-inquiry provisions and rejected facial Fourth Amendment and vagueness challenges to the detainer mandate and "materially limits." ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---|---| | Preemption (field & conflict) | SB4 is field- and conflict-preempted because Congress occupied immigration enforcement/cooperation and intended voluntariness | Federal statutes govern local–federal cooperation; but they do not occupy the field or forbid state regulation of whether localities cooperate; savings clauses permit cooperation | Rejected: no field preemption; assistance/information/status-inquiry provisions do not conflict with federal law | | "Endorse" prohibition (First Amendment) | "Endorse" is overbroad, viewpoint-discriminatory, and vague as applied to elected officials' political speech | State urges narrowing construction ("sanction" or official act) to avoid covering core political speech | Partial win for plaintiffs: court held the statute not readily susceptible to the narrowing construction and enjoined enforcement of §752.053(a)(1) as applied to elected officials; left application to non‑elected government speech for later resolution | | ICE-detainer mandate (Fourth Amendment) | Mandate authorizes unconstitutional seizures: local officers cannot detain based solely on removability probable cause; facial challenge succeeds | Form I-247A and ICE practice supply probable cause; collective-knowledge doctrine imputes ICE knowledge to local officers; compliance requires federal request and is not unilateral | Rejected facial challenge: plaintiffs failed to show the mandate is unconstitutional in all applications; upheld mandate as facially valid (as-applied challenges left open) | | Vagueness of "materially limits" (Due Process) | Phrase is unconstitutionally vague on its face, lacks a core standard | Context and §752.053(b) supply concrete examples; materiality is a familiar legal standard; narrowing constructions are available | Rejected: "materially limits" has a clear core and is not facially void for vagueness | ### Key Cases Cited Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (discusses federal preemption and limits on state immigration powers) De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (field preemption requires clear and manifest congressional purpose) United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (limits on adopting narrowing constructions; noscitur a sociis example) Whiting v. United States Chamber of Commerce, 563 U.S. 582 (state immigration-related regulation upheld under savings clauses) United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (facial-challenge standard: "unconstitutional in all of its applications") Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (disfavoring pre-enforcement facial challenges)