City of El Cenizo, Texas v. State of Texas
890 F.3d 164
5th Cir.2018Background
- Texas enacted SB4 (2017) to prohibit "sanctuary" policies: it forbids local entities from adopting, enforcing, or endorsing policies that "prohibit or materially limit" immigration enforcement, requires cooperation with ICE, and prescribes civil/criminal penalties enforced by the Texas Attorney General.
- Key SB4 provisions at issue: (1) status-inquiry (may inquire into immigration status), (2) information-sharing (may share status with federal agencies), (3) assistance/cooperation (must assist federal immigration officers when reasonable/necessary), and (4) an ICE-detainer mandate (art. 2.251) requiring local agencies to comply with ICE detainer requests unless detainee proves U.S. citizenship or lawful status.
- Plaintiffs (cities, counties, local officials, advocacy groups) brought a pre-enforcement facial challenge seeking a preliminary injunction, alleging federal preemption, First Amendment violations ("endorse" prohibition), Fourth Amendment violations (detainer mandate), and vagueness ("materially limits").
- The district court issued a preliminary injunction against several provisions; a panel partially stayed that injunction pending appeal. Texas appealed; plaintiffs cross‑appealed seeking broader relief.
- The Fifth Circuit largely reversed: it upheld SB4 in full except it enjoined enforcement of the "endorse" prohibition as applied to elected officials, and vacated other parts of the district court injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal preemption (field & conflict) of SB4 provisions, esp. assistance/cooperation | Federal law occupies the field of federal-local immigration cooperation; SB4 conflicts with federal statutes/policy (e.g., 8 U.S.C. §1357 scheme, §1373) | Congress did not clearly occupy the field; federal statutes regulate how localities may cooperate, but not whether they must; §1357(g)(10) preserves non-287(g) cooperation | No field or conflict preemption; SB4 generally permissible (assistance/cooperation not preempted) |
| "Endorse" prohibition and First Amendment (as applied to elected officials) | "Endorse" is overbroad, vague, and viewpoint-discriminatory; it chills core political speech by elected officials | Term can be construed narrowly to mean official sanction/act; statute aims at governmental policy, not individual speech | Enjoined only as applied to elected officials: "endorse" not readily susceptible to limiting construction and cannot constitutionally be applied to elected officials' core political speech |
| ICE-detainer mandate and Fourth Amendment (pre-enforcement facial challenge) | Mandate authorizes unconstitutional seizures based only on removability (civil standard) and could force officers to detain without probable cause of criminality or independent review | ICE detainers (Form I-247A) accompanied by an administrative probable-cause determination; collective-knowledge imputes ICE probable cause to local officers; statute includes limited exception and does not require blind obedience | Facial challenge fails: mandate not unconstitutional in all applications; compliance with ICE detainers (with administrative probable-cause) does not per se violate Fourth Amendment |
| Vagueness of phrase "materially limits" (Due Process) | Phrase is hopelessly indeterminate and invites arbitrary enforcement; thus facially void | Context and §752.053(b)(1)-(3) supply concrete examples; materiality is a familiar legal standard and can be applied | Not facially void for vagueness; plaintiffs failed to meet high standard for facial invalidation |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (federal supremacy in immigration and limits on state intrusion into federal immigration functions)
- De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976) (field preemption requires clear, manifest congressional purpose)
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (limitations on federal power to compel state/local officers)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial challenges must show statute unconstitutional in all applications)
- Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011) (state measures regulating immigration-related employer verification not necessarily preempted)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (vagueness doctrine and invalidation of the residual clause)
- Williams-Yulee v. The Fla. Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (2015) (strict scrutiny for restrictions on core political speech by elected officials)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (civil immigration detention can be lawful without criminality finding)