A federal judge will consider this week whether Texas can proceed with its hotly-contested legislation that authorizes police to arrest migrants and state judges to order deportation, the latest in a constitutional battle playing out in the Lone Star state over illegal immigration.

At issue is whether the federal government has exclusive authority over entry and deportation of illegal immigrants, as immigration law has often been understood since the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in Arizona v. United States, or if a state can enforce immigration issues, since Texas’ Senate Bill 4 makes illegal entry a state crime. 

A lawsuit by the Biden administration — recently consolidated with a separate lawsuit from immigration advocacy and civil rights groups — is seeking to block Texas’ legislation from going into effect on March 5, arguing in court that “Texas cannot run its own immigration system.” 

A hearing on the request is set for Thursday in federal district court at Austin, presided over by a senior federal district judge, David Ezra. 

The legal battle ensuing over whether a state can arrest and deport migrants is one of multiple standoffs between Texas and the federal government, including Governor Abbott’s pledge to keep building a border wall and adding razor wire barriers. 

On Monday, Mr. Abbott posted a video on X of construction efforts underway to build the wall and wrote,“until President Biden fulfills his constitutional duty, Texas will utilize every tool and strategy to secure our southern border.”

Over the weekend, he promised more National Guard and razor wire, part of his “re-doubling” of efforts to “expand the areas where we are denying illegal entry into Texas.” 

Proponents of Texas’ SB 4 say it’s necessary for the state to take immigration into its own hands, and say the state for too long has had to bear the brunt of illegal immigration policies advocated for by Democrats in coastal cities. 

“We have more people coming across our border every single day than what New York gets in a week or a month,” Mr. Abbott said on “America’s Newsroom” on Fox News in January, adding that it’s “outrageous” for sanctuary cities to complain about lack of resources after Texas sent a fraction of the migrants it deals with regularly up north. 

Opponents of the legislation say it’s unconstitutional and ignores federal law, and say it wastes taxpayer dollars on policies that will harm minority groups. “Time and time again, elected officials in Texas have ignored their constituents and opted for white supremacist rhetoric and mass incarceration instead,” the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas’ legal director, Adriana Piñon, said in a statement. The group did not return the Sun’s request for comment. 

Texas has transported more than 103,000 migrants to sanctuary cities, including more than 12,500 to Washington, D.C., more than 37,000 to New York City, and more than 16,000 to Denver, according to the governor. 

As Mr. Abbott promises to keep taking into immigration into his own hands — in what he says is the absence of border security from the Biden administration — he says the “stiff resistance” of his state is “educating cartels not to mess with Texas.” 

Recent data reported by CBS News found that migrant crossings are spiking in Arizona and California, with the Tucson and San Diego sectors becoming the busiest crossing points as migrants use gaps in border barriers to enter illegally. In Texas, however, crossings have decreased significantly in recent weeks, as the National Guard there have fortified sections of the border, making once-popular crossings more difficult to cut through. 

The Department of Justice’s press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the upcoming hearing. 

The Justice Department’s complaint cites Arizona v. U.S., in which the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona could not arrest and deport migrants on its own or prevent migrants without documents from getting a job in the state, holding that these areas were in the federal government’s purview. 

The Nine held that the regulation of immigrants is “so intimately blended and intertwined with responsibilities of the national government” that state law gives way its law comes into conflict with the federal government’s, as the Justice Department notes. 

“Texas cannot disregard the United States Constitution and settled Supreme Court precedent,” the principal assistant attorney general, Brian Boynton, said in a statement when filing the lawsuit. “We have brought this action to ensure that Texas adheres to the framework adopted by Congress and the Constitution for regulation of immigration.”    

Mr. Abbott has repeatedly said the migrant influx amounts to an “invasion,” invoking the constitutional Invasion Clause, which allows states to defend themselves in the absence of the federal government. 

When signing SB 4 into law in December, Mr. Abbott said it was because President Biden had eliminated border policies put in place by President Trump and had “done nothing to halt illegal immigration.” 

“President Biden’s deliberate inaction has left Texas to fend for itself,” he said.