RAICES Bulletin: SB4 Blocked
By RAICES Public Affairs Director Javier Hidalgo, Esq.
TL;DR On May 14, 2026, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking key provisions of Texas’ Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), ruling that immigration authority belongs exclusively to the federal government. However, communities still face risks of racial profiling and should continue prioritizing "know your rights" education and safety planning.
WHAT TO KNOW
Issue: On May 14, 2026, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking key provisions of Texas’ Senate Bill 4 (SB 4). The blocked provisions criminalize unauthorized reentry into Texas, empower state magistrates to order deportations, penalize noncompliance with those orders, and bar state courts from pausing prosecutions during pending federal immigration cases. The ruling arrived just one day before the law was set to take effect.
Rationale: The judge ruled that SB 4 violates the U.S. Constitution because the federal government holds exclusive authority over immigration law, specifically detention and removal. The court noted "striking similarities" to Arizona's 2010 "show me your papers" law, which the Supreme Court previously struck down. Judge Ezra rejected Texas' argument that it was merely enforcing federal crimes, noting that by forcing state courts to prosecute despite active federal proceedings, SB 4 flips the Constitution on its head and places state law above federal authority.
RAICES Impact: Many in the RAICES community—including but not limited to our clients—could be impacted by SB 4, which invites systemic racial profiling. While the injunction blocks several harmful legal outcomes, it does not halt the "illegal entry" provision. Because this ruling will not eliminate racial profiling, RAICES must continue to educate our clients and ourselves on safely navigating interactions with law enforcement.
Community Impact: It was previously projected the law could spark up to 80,000 additional state arrests annually. Though that projection may now shift, communities at risk of being targeted by aggressive profiling under SB 4 should continue to equip themselves with "know your rights" information and establish safety plans for potential encounters.
Related Legal Battles: This new lawsuit is a proposed class action brought on behalf of noncitizen plaintiffs targeted by the reentry provision. Previously, in April 2026, the Fifth Circuit dismissed a prior legal challenge to SB 4 due to the organizational plaintiffs' lack of standing. An appeal of this latest injunction is expected, alongside future challenges from individuals impacted by the "illegal entry" provision, which was not part of this case and has now gone into effect.
Broader Immigration Strategy: SB 4 is widely seen as a test case; if successful, it may embolden other states to enact similar legislation. A patchwork of varied and maybe contradicting state-level immigration laws is reason enough to oppose them. However, the greater danger lies in incentivizing racial profiling. Advocates resisting these measures should highlight both the constitutional overreach and the human cost, while prioritizing community rights education to mitigate harm.
