The Biden administration is challenging a newly enacted Texas border security law that grants state authorities expanded power to detain and remove individuals suspected of unlawful entry. The federal government argues that the law infringes on federal immigration authority and disrupts national immigration enforcement frameworks.

The Texas measure, signed by Governor Greg Abbott, allows state and local law enforcement to arrest migrants on charges of illegal entry and permits state judges to issue deportation orders to Mexico—bypassing federal procedures. The legislation is part of Texas’s broader Operation Lone Star, which seeks to curb unauthorized crossings at the southern border through state-led initiatives.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a legal challenge, asserting that immigration enforcement lies exclusively within federal jurisdiction and that Texas’s unilateral action violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. The DOJ contends that the law risks fragmenting immigration policy across states, creating legal conflicts, and undermining consistent national enforcement.

Federal officials also raised concerns over potential diplomatic fallout with Mexico since the law allows state-level deportations without bilateral coordination. Mexico’s foreign ministry has already issued statements rejecting any state-level authority to repatriate foreign nationals outside federal channels.

Texas argues the law is a response to federal inaction at the border, citing surging migrant encounters and security concerns. State officials maintain that the border crisis has imposed unsustainable burdens on law enforcement, healthcare systems, and local infrastructure. The legislation’s supporters claim the state has a constitutional right to protect its borders under public safety and emergency authority.

Legal experts anticipate the case will move quickly through federal courts and, given its constitutional implications, potentially reach the Supreme Court. The outcome may define the limits of state intervention in immigration enforcement and influence how other states pursue border policies.

If the law stands, it could embolden other states to enact parallel measures, triggering state-versus-federal clashes over immigration control. If overturned, it would reaffirm centralized federal authority but leave unresolved tensions over border management and enforcement gaps.