A controversial Texas border security bill experienced major whiplash on Tuesday in federal court.
In a shocking development for the legal situation of SB 4, a majority of Justices at the Supreme Court of the United States lifted its administrative stay of the Texas law after it had twice paused enforcement. The pending case and actions before the nation’s high court occurred after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had reversed a District Court decision to issue a preliminary injunction for the state border law, allowing the new policy to temporarily go into effect.
SB 4 was approved by the Texas Legislature in November 2023 and signed in December 2023. According to the bill summary, SB 4 would “amend the Penal Code to make it a Class B misdemeanor offense for a person who is an alien to enter or attempt to enter Texas directly from a foreign nation at any location other than a lawful port of entry;” and it would also “make it an offense for a person who is an alien to enter, attempt to enter, or be found in Texas after the person has been denied admission to or excluded, deported, or removed from the United States or has departed from the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding.”
However, hours after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its surprising order, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the Texas law, pending a decision on the merits of the case. The federal appeals court considered arguments from both sides on Wednesday, making an expedited opinion extremely likely on the enforceability of the law.
Before the late-night action at the Fifth Circuit, Arizona legislative Republicans reacted to the news from the Supreme Court. Senate President Warren Petersen said, “The Arizona Governor has vetoed legislation that would have given Arizona’s law enforcement the ability to protect our citizens from the invasion occurring at the southern border. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow Texas’ S.B.4 to go into effect shows that the Governor’s veto was rash and hasty. She will soon have the opportunity to do the right thing, as we will give her another chance to sign this bill into law to protect Arizonans from border-related crimes.”
🚨 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Senate Republicans Applaud SCOTUS for Allowing Texas to Protect its Citizens Against Biden's Border Invasion and Call on Hobbs to do the Same for Arizonans@votewarren@AZSenatorShamppic.twitter.com/73luDz0jQC
Senator Janae Shamp also released a statement after the court decision, focusing on her ongoing efforts to enact the Arizona Border Invasion Act into law. Shamp’s bill was passed by both chambers of the Arizona Legislature earlier this month but fell victim to the first veto this session from Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs. The first-term lawmaker wrote, “While Joe Biden continues to neglect the national security crisis of this border invasion that’s allowing deadly fentanyl, terrorists, human smugglers, child sex traffickers, rapists, murderers, and other dangerous criminals to forever change our communities and the lives of Arizonans, state legislatures across the country are rightfully overriding the failures of his administration and Arizona is no different. We are urging Hobbs to not fail Arizonans again, and to sign our legislation when it hits her desk.”
State Representative Austin Smith echoed Shamp’s comments, calling on Hobbs to join legislative Republicans in addressing the border crisis. He stated, “The states can defend their borders. Governor Hobbs sign the border bills, end this madness and dangerous influx of illegals coming to Arizona. Do your job and defend the state.”
The states can defend their borders. @GovernorHobbs sign the border bills, end this madness and dangerous influx of illegals coming to Arizona.
Other border related bills are currently making their way through the Arizona Legislature. Governor Hobbs is expected to oppose all Republican efforts to mitigate the border crisis from the state level.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona Republican Legislators were on the winning side of a unanimous decision at the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the opinion from the Colorado State Supreme Court that “ordered the Colorado secretary of state to exclude the former President from the Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.” The Court unanimously ruled that “the judgement of the Colorado Supreme Court cannot stand” – though two concurring opinions (one by Justice Barrett and one by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson) gave additional thoughts and context to the deliberations from the panel.
The decision from the nation’s high court follows an amicus brief that was submitted from more than two dozen state attorneys general and the Arizona Legislature under the leadership of Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma. That brief urged the U.S. Supreme Court to consider that “dangerous ruling out of Colorado.”
After the news of the 9-0 decision was announced, the Arizona Senate Republicans Caucus “X” account posted, “Colorado got it wrong. President Warren Petersen and the Arizona Legislature are proud to have supported President Donald Trump by filing a brief with more than two dozen other states. Today the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with us and unanimously overturned Colorado’s attempt to disenfranchise voters by keeping President Trump off the ballot.”
Colorado got it wrong.
President @votewarren and the Arizona Legislature are proud to have supported President Donald Trump by filing a brief with more than two dozen other states.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with us and unanimously overturned Colorado's attempt to… pic.twitter.com/j2C9TRdsRi
When the Legislature joined the amicus brief in the lead-up to the arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, Petersen had said, “This is clearly a case of judicial activism and a violation of the separation of powers. Leftist bias and prejudice are on full display from the Colorado Supreme Court.” His press release asserted that the U.S. Constitution “reserve[d] the power to determine the political question of what constitutes an ‘insurrection’ to Congress – not rogue courts.”
The Petersen and Toma-led legislature has been active in joining legal fights around the nation and in-state – especially in the absence of an attorney general who is not generally favorable to Republicans’ perspectives of different cases.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has agreed to take up a case that would have an impact on Gov. Katie Hobbs’ past censorship activities.
The case, Murthy v. Missouri, focuses on the alleged coordinated campaign by government officials and social media companies to suppress and censor certain speech on major public issues, specifically the COVID-19 lab leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. Hobbs, while secretary of state and during her gubernatorial campaign, coordinated with social media companies to remove certain speech online.
Hobbs’ then-chief of staff and former assistant secretary of state, Allie Bones, said in a statement prior to Hobbs’ inauguration that it was the job of governments to purge the public square of perceived misinformation and disinformation.
“One of the ways we [make sure that voters are informed] is by working to counter disinformation online that can confuse voters,” stated Bones. “This is yet another example of conspiracy theorists trying to create chaos and confusion by casting doubt on our election system. It’s unfair to Arizona voters and it’s harmful to our democracy.”
Although SCOTUS accepted consideration of Murthy v. Missouri, they didn’t accept a lower court’s injunction preventing government officials from continuing their coordination with social media companies to moderate online speech. Justices John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson together granted the Biden administration’s petition to remove the injunction, effectively permitting the government to engage in censorship online.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the SCOTUS majority’s suspension of the injunction was “disturbing,” and that any censorship of private speech is antithetical to democracy. Alito dismissed the Biden administration’s argument that an injunction against coordinating with social media companies to control citizens’ speech was the same as preventing government officials from speaking on a matter.
“The injunction applies only when the Government crosses the line and begins to coerce or control others’ exercise of their free-speech rights,” said Alito. “Does the Government think that the First Amendment allows Executive Branch officials to engage in such conduct? Does it have plans for this to occur between now and the time when the case is decided?”
Alito further declared that SCOTUS had effectively ruled to allow the Biden administration to continue with its First Amendment violations identified by the lower courts.
“At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news,” said Alito. “That is most unfortunate.”
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined Alito in his dissent.
Gov. Hobbs issued an emergency heat declaration with an expired enforcement date the day after additional emails revealing her coordinated censorship efforts were released. Hobbs dismissed the emails as a “sideshow,” but didn’t deny allegations of maintaining unscrupulous relationships with major social media companies.
Hobbs’ past coordination with social media companies prompted the House to establish an interim ad hoc committee on Oversight, Accountability, and Big Tech. The committee first convened in September and met once more earlier this month.
While SCOTUS contemplates the case, Hobbs already has defense provided by the state’s chief legal officer.
In August, Attorney General Kris Mayes joined a 21-state coalition of Democratic attorneys general opposing the then-active federal injunction. Mayes declared that control over free speech is paramount to public safety, implying that governmental interest in safety outweighs the constitutional right of free speech.
“Social media companies and government officials must have open communication in order to ensure the safety of Americans online,” said Mayes. “A pillar of the U.S. government is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its citizens. The lower court’s decision impedes on this protection and means federal, state and local officials cannot contact social media companies about dangerous online content.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A coalition of Arizona lawmakers are pushing back against the recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on President Joe Biden’s student debt cancellation efforts.
Earlier in July, a group of Arizona Democrat legislators wrote a letter to President Biden, calling on his administration to “deliver its campaign promise to cancel student debt.”
“While members of the (SCOTUS) majority enjoy vacations paid for by billionaires, this ruling shows blatant disregard for 43 million American borrowers being crushed by student debt.” — letter to President @JoeBiden from @Aguilar4AZ & Dem lawmakers on student debt relief. 👇 pic.twitter.com/KCTl3h3Uwa
— Arizona House Democrats (@AZHouseDems) July 18, 2023
The legislators, led by Representative Cesar Aguilar, expressed their collective outrage over the Supreme Court opinion in June, which overturned the president’s student debt cancellation plans. They wrote, “While members of the Court’s majority enjoy vacations paid for by billionaires, this ruling shows blatant disregard and disrespect for the 43 million American borrowers being crushed by student debt and desperate for relief.”
In their letter, the lawmakers included information about Arizonans who were in line to benefit from the president’s debt cancellation scheme that was thwarted by the nation’s high court, stating, “Nearly 900,000 Arizonans stood to benefit from your Student Loan Cancelation Plan – 12.4 percent of our state’s population. The average student loan debt in Arizona is $33,396. Your Student Loan Cancellation Plan could cancel $10,000 for those making less than $125,000 and up to $20,000 for those who are Pell Grant Recipients. Arizona has the 15th highest number of borrowers in the country and would have seen a significant financial release and economic impact.”
The Democrats warned of the consequences that could come with the Court’s decision, adding, “Without relief Arizonans will have less money in their pockets to pay for bills, goods and services strained by inflation. Less consumer spending reduces economic growth and moves the American Dream further out of reach for millions. … We urge you to act as swiftly as possible so Arizonans still recovering financially due to the pandemic can get back on their feet.”
On the last day of its recent term, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Biden v. Nebraska, striking down the president’s student loan cancellation program. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion, and he was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
The majority opinion stated that “the ‘economic and political significance’ of the Secretary’s action is staggering by any measure. Practically every student borrower benefits, regardless of circumstances. A budget model issued by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania estimates that the program will cost taxpayers ‘between $469 billion and $569 billion,’ depending on the total number of borrowers ultimately covered.”
At that time, freshman Republican Representative Austin Smith reacted, “Cancelling student loan debt is and always will be an irresponsible and brainless ‘policy’ proposal. It deserved this fiery death at SCOTUS. Do not take astronomically large loans for a career with a salary you will never be able to pay off.”
Cancelling student loan debt is and always will be an irresponsible and brainless “policy” proposal. It deserved this fiery death at SCOTUS.
Do not take out astronomically large loans for a career with a salary you will never be able to pay off.
The U.S. Supreme Court saved one of the biggest opinions of the term for its second-to-last day, and its decision triggered reactions on both sides of the aisle in Arizona.
When the nation’s high court handed down its highly anticipated ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, it made a significant correction in the standards for admissions systems used by public universities around the United States. The Court held that race-based standards in Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs “violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Writing for the majority coalition of the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts stated, “…the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual – not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
The historic decision by the Supreme Court, drew reactions from Arizona’s politicians on both side of the aisle.
In response to an inquiry from AZ Free News, Senate President Warren Petersen replied, “This is a great decision for the fight against discrimination. The highest court in the land agreed with Martin Luther King Jr. in that you should not be judged by the color of your skin. An individual should be considered for college admissions based on academics, experience, qualifications and character—not by race. I’m thrilled this ruling will bring some sanity back to institutions of higher learning.”
Senate President Pro Tempore T.J. Shope told AZ Free News, “SCOTUS made the right decision today. As the proud son of a Mexican American mother and a white father of German ancestry, our family always knew that we should be judged on our character and not our color. We’re all Americans and we all share a responsibility in keeping this country free of racism & bigotry.”
Sadly, this isn’t a parody account. Just a Biden Field Organizer telling us how she feels… https://t.co/SIAnwArZeR
Democrats, however, took issue with the Court’s ruling. Senate Democratic Leader Mitzi Epstein released a statement after the opinion’s revelation, saying, “Affirmative Action has never been about jumping to the front of the line without any merit. It has been about providing a ladder of equity to help those who have faced adversity in education, the workplace, housing, and every aspect of American life. Affirmative Action has been about providing opportunities for students who are Black and Brown to attend colleges, and for college students to live, love and learn among diverse peers. The same people celebrating this bad Court decision have been actively trying to whitewash history and walk America back to the book-burning past. SCOTUS did not rule against legacy admissions, employee and family recommendations, and grandiose donor admissions. The Court ruled to allow favoritism, but not favoritism for those who have faced racist obstacles. The Court ruled for the favored to get more favors, just as Republican politicians have pushed ways for the rich to get richer, and for the powerful to get more power.”
“The Court ruled for the favored to get more favors, just as Republican politicians have pushed ways for the rich to get richer, and for the powerful to get more power." -Senate Democratic Leader @MitziEpsteinpic.twitter.com/C985mrcA0O
— Arizona Senate Democrats (@AZSenateDems) June 30, 2023
Democrat Representative Analise Ortiz called the Court’s opinion “devastating,” adding that “this ruling upholds white supremacy in higher education and the workforce. Simultaneously, the efforts to privatize K-12 education and drain public schools of funding achieve the same end. We must fight back to ensure racial equity in education.”
Devastating. This ruling upholds white supremacy in higher education and the workforce. Simultaneously, the efforts to privatize K-12 education and drain public schools of funding achieve the same end. We must fight back to ensure racial equity in education. https://t.co/r5iKn6WTB5
— Rep. Analise Ortiz (@RepAnaliseOrtiz) June 29, 2023
Kimberly Yee, the State’s Republican Treasurer, also weighed in on the news of the day, writing, “I applaud the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to keep merit, character and academic achievement the center point of college admissions. The American Dream is attained by putting in the honest, hard work. No one should be able to cut ahead of the line in the name of affirmative action, based on the color of their skin. This decision upholds the core Constitutional principle that no institution in America is allowed to discriminate based on race.”
Today I issued the following statement upon the U.S. Supreme Court's historic decision to overturn affirmative action in the college admissions process. pic.twitter.com/ZY3QfNwjMk
