Where is the constitutional problem with SB4, the sanctuary city ban?

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue most quoted.

Robert Pratt

The Left in Texas has me curious. I’m curious as to the legal arguments they think actually hold water in their lawsuits against SB4, the ban on sanctuary policies by local governments in Texas.

Lana Shadwick at Breitbart Texas reports: “…two Democrat-dominated cities in Texas are joining the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and other open border and pro-amnesty organizations to block the law.”

“The City of San Antonio and City Councilman Rey A. Saldaña are partnering with MALDEF, and plaintiffs La Unión Del Pueblo Entero, the Texas Association of Chicanos in Higher Education (TACHE), and the Worker’s Defense Project (WDF). They are suing the Lone Star State and its governor and attorney general in federal court. They argue that the new law is unconstitutional,” Shadwick wrote.

Gov. Greg Abbott

Governor Abbot said, in an interview with Breitbart: “The so-called controversial part of this law is what some label as the “show your papers’ component. And what everyone seems to get wrong is they think that that provision was stricken down in the Arizona law. To the contrary, the provision in the Arizona law is stricter than the Texas law. The Arizona law required that law enforcement ask for papers. The Texas law does not require it; it allows it so there is that one difference.”

“But despite that difference, the Arizona law was upheld by every U.S. Supreme Court justice, including the liberals. The so-called controversial part of this law has been ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court and upheld,” the governor added.

These lawsuits seem little more than inflammatory partisan campaigning by lawsuit by Texas Democrats.

Also read: Illegal aliens demand treatment not available even to citizens