The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a plea from the Biden administration, clearing the way for Texas to enforce a new state law that authorizes police to arrest migrants crossing the Rio Grande illegally.

The decision came by a 6-3 vote, but several judges emphasized the preliminary nature of the dispute.

But

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented strongly. “Today the Court invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement,” they said. “Texas can now immediately enforce its own law imposing criminal liability on thousands of non-citizens and requiring their removal to Mexico. This law will disrupt sensitive foreign relations, frustrate the protection of individuals fleeing persecution, hinder active federal enforcement efforts, undermine the ability of federal agencies to “Detect and monitor imminent security threats and deter noncitizens from reporting abuse or human trafficking,” they said .

Justice Elena Kagan dissented separately.

The question is whether Texas and other red states can strictly enforce the laws against this

migrants coming

enter the country illegally. Those state leaders say they are acting because of what they see as lax enforcement by the Biden administration.

The Justice Department said that if Texas were allowed to enforce its own hardline immigration policies, it would “create chaos” along the border and “disrupt” relations with Mexico. Attorneys for the department urged the justices to “maintain the status quo” while lower courts considered challenges to the new state law.

But Texas attorneys pointed to the increase in migrants crossing the Rio Grande and said smugglers have taken advantage of lax enforcement.

They cited President Biden’s comment during his State of the Union address: “People are paying these smugglers $8,000 to cross the border,” he said, because migrants know “if they get by and get into the country, it will take six up to eight years before crossing the border’. Biden advocated a bipartisan border bill that he said would shorten delays in asylum hearings and thus reduce the incentive for illegal crossings.

Gov. Greg Abbott supported the new state law, arguing that Texas as a “sovereign” state had the power to protect itself from what he called an “invasion.” He quoted the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who made a similar point in a 2012 dissent, insisting that it was a myth that the Constitution gave the federal government exclusive power over immigration.

On February 29, a federal judge in Austin had blocked the law from taking effect because it conflicted with federal enforcement. Four days later the

United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit

in New Orleans lifted the judge’s order by a 2-1 vote and without explanation.

The Supreme Court declined to lift this order, which would allow the law to take effect at least temporarily.

The

American Union for Civil Liberties

and immigrant rights groups had also filed a lawsuit to block the Texas law from taking effect, saying it could have a “devastating impact” on immigrants and lead to racial profiling.

The Texas law was seen as a direct challenge to previous Supreme Court rulings that upheld the federal government’s exclusive power over immigration enforcement.

In 2012, the justices voted 5-3 to block most of an Arizona law that would have given state officials and local police the authority to impose restrictions on migrants who were “not lawfully present in the United States.” The court then said that federal law preempts or overrides state enforcement that is “in conflict” with federal enforcement.

The Biden administration said the Texas law is “plainly inconsistent” with the 2012 ruling and cannot be upheld. “More than a century of this court’s precedents… recognize that the power to admit and expel noncitizens is a core responsibility of the national government,” said attorney

General Gen.

Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in her distress call.

In defense of Texas law known as

Senate bill

4, the state’s attorneys said it “reflects” federal immigration law and does not “contradict” it.

They said: “SB 4 allows Texas to help enforce federal immigration laws. Everyone benefits when Congress’s legislative priorities are respected. … Texas is the nation’s frontline defense against transnational violence and is forced to deal with the deadly consequences of the federal government’s inability or unwillingness to protect the border.”

The 5th Circuit will hear arguments on the legality of the Texas law on April 3.