Stock Markets June 1, 2026 06:50 AM

Appeals Court Pauses Injunction, Clearing Path for Texas to Enforce Parts of Border Law

Two-to-one 5th Circuit order lifts judge's block on provisions enabling state arrests and deportations tied to crossings

By Leila Farooq

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on May 29 put on hold a federal injunction that had blocked portions of Texas' border enforcement law, allowing state authorities to move forward with key elements that permit arrests and deportations of people suspected of crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. The decision reverses a district judge's May 14 injunction and follows a new lawsuit brought on behalf of non-citizens by civil-rights groups.

Appeals Court Pauses Injunction, Clearing Path for Texas to Enforce Parts of Border Law

Key Points

  • A 2-1 panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 29 stayed a May 14 injunction that had blocked enforcement of central provisions of Texas' border law.
  • The injunction had been issued in a class-action suit by the ACLU, ACLU of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project; those groups say they will continue to fight the law.
  • The legal challenges have included prior appellate rulings on standing and an April decision that overturned an earlier injunction; the new lawsuit targets four specific provisions that could subject non-citizens to state criminal penalties and to deportation orders issued by Texas magistrate judges.
  • Sectors impacted: state legal and law enforcement operations, immigration policy enforcement, and civil rights advocacy organizations.

On May 29, a 2-1 panel of the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit temporarily lifted an injunction that had prevented enforcement of central parts of a Texas law targeting people suspected of having crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.

The order stayed an injunction issued by U.S. District Judge David Ezra in Austin on May 14. Judge Ezra had granted the injunction in a class-action suit filed by civil-rights groups representing thousands of individuals who could fall under the law's provisions, concluding the state measure improperly interfered with the federal government's authority over immigration, naturalization and deportation.

Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton - who is a candidate for the U.S. Senate - promptly appealed Judge Ezra's ruling, leading to the appeals court's May 29 action. Paxton's office did not provide a response to a request for comment.

The organizations that brought the most recent challenge - the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project - characterized the appeals court decision as disappointing and said they will continue to contest what they called an unlawful law.

The litigation history is complex. Earlier this year, an appeals court in April had overturned a prior injunction that had barred enforcement of the Republican-backed measure known as SB 4. The article's account notes that the Trump administration had dropped a case the Biden administration brought challenging the law. In a separate earlier vote, a 5th Circuit panel concluded by a 10-7 tally that certain immigrant-rights organizations lacked standing to pursue their challenge.

To address the standing issue, the new lawsuit brought by ACLU-affiliated groups was filed on behalf of non-citizens who might be subject to four principal provisions of the state law. Among those provisions are one that would make it a state crime for a person to reenter the United States after deportation even in cases where that person has federal permission to return or has since obtained lawful permanent resident status, and another that would authorize magistrate judges in Texas to issue deportation orders.

The appeals court's temporary stay means that, for now, Texas authorities can proceed to enforce the aspects of the law that were at the center of the challenge while the legal disputes continue to work through the courts.


Legal status: The case remains in litigation as the new ACLU-backed suit pursues claims on behalf of potentially affected non-citizens and as the appellate process unfolds.

Immediate implications: The ruling allows elements of the law to take effect pending further judicial review; the parties involved indicate they will continue to press their respective legal arguments.

Risks

  • Ongoing legal uncertainty - Continued litigation could produce further rulings that alter whether and how the law is enforced, affecting state enforcement agencies and legal institutions.
  • Enforcement variability - Allowing parts of the law to take effect while challenges proceed could create inconsistent practices across jurisdictions in Texas and raise operational questions for law enforcement and courts.
  • Rights and procedural concerns - Provisions that enable state-level criminal penalties for reentry and empower magistrate judges to issue deportation orders raise legal and civil-rights challenges that may persist through prolonged court battles, affecting communities and advocacy groups.

More from Stock Markets

Toronto market ends at fresh record as healthcare, financials and materials lead gains Jun 4, 2026 After-Hours Movers: Lululemon Dips on Guidance as Software and Data Names Show Mixed Reactions Jun 4, 2026 Lululemon Lowers Fiscal 2026 Revenue and EPS Guidance as U.S. Demand Softens Jun 4, 2026 Anthropic Places Engineers Inside NSA to Support Mythos AI for Offensive Cyber Tasks Jun 4, 2026 Trump Directs $700M Toward Coal Industry, Lifting Peabody Shares Jun 4, 2026