Texas S.B. 4: What we can VERIFY about the immigration law

In December 2023, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed an immigration bill known as S.B. 4 into law. The law was quickly met with lawsuits from groups looking to stop it from taking effect, calling it unconstitutional.

Since then, Texas has been embroiled in legal battles over the law. Most recently, on March 19, a federal appeals court issued an order that put S.B. 4 back on hold. The decision came after a divided Supreme Court had allowed Texas to begin enforcing the law. 

The law is currently on pause as the appeals court hears arguments. As the situation unfolds, we have VERIFIED answers to some of the top questions about what could happen under S.B. 4 if the law is allowed to be enforced. 

THE SOURCES

• Texas S.B. 4
• Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton
• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas
• Bill analysis published by the nonpartisan Texas House Research Organization
• Denise Gilman, clinical professor and co-director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law
• Press release from the Mexican government
• Arizona Senate Bill 1231 summary
• Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs veto letter
• Arizona Senate Republicans statement

WHAT WE FOUND

1. Would S.B. 4 allow Texas police to detain anyone suspected of entering the U.S. illegally?

THE ANSWER

S.B. 4 makes it a state crime to illegally cross the border into Texas or to try to do so. Under the law, Texas police officers can detain people suspected of entering or attempting to enter the state from another country without authorization, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas (ACLU) says.

A person is detained when police officers have “reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, allowing them to investigate further before deciding if an arrest is warranted,” a Texas law firm explains. An arrest “requires probable cause, meaning law enforcement has gathered sufficient evidence to believe a crime has been committed,” the law firm says. 

In a statement, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the law “was adopted to address the ongoing disaster at the Texas-Mexico border by making it a state crime to cross the border illegally.”

“This enables Texas law enforcement to detain illegal aliens and for judges to order them to return to the country from where they illegally entered,” Paxton said. 

Under the law, people who are arrested for crossing the border illegally could be charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to six months in jail. People who have previously been convicted of crossing the border illegally into Texas could be charged with a felony punishable by anywhere from two to 20 years in prison.   

Because the law does specify that a judge must determine an officer had probable cause to arrest someone, supporters believe it “would have a limited effect on communities far from the border,” according to a bill analysis published by the nonpartisan Texas House Research Organization.

But critics say S.B. 4 would “subject migrants across Texas to the threat of detention or forced removal, and could lead to an increase in racial profiling,” according to the bill analysis. 

“Although the bill would require that law enforcement officers have probable cause to make an arrest, a person could still be detained anywhere in Texas for a variety of reasons, as the bill would not explicitly state that ‘probable cause’ constituted an officer witnessing the individual physically crossing the border,” the analysis says. 

2. Could S.B. 4 be enforced anywhere in Texas?

THE ANSWER

There are certain places in the state where S.B. 4 cannot be enforced. 

Police are prohibited from making arrests at public or private schools, churches and other places of worship, health care facilities, and facilities that provide forensic medical exams to assault survivors, according to the law.

There aren’t any other parameters in S.B. 4 for other locations.

3. Would migrants who are arrested under S.B. 4 be sent back to Mexico, regardless of what country they are from?

THE ANSWER

S.B. 4 requires people to “return to the foreign nation” from which they “entered or attempted to enter.” This means a person would likely have to go back to Mexico, regardless of where they are from. 

Once a person is in custody for violating the state law, they could agree to a judge’s order to leave the U.S. voluntarily or be prosecuted on criminal charges.

If a person is convicted and has served their sentence, the judge is then required to order law enforcement or other state officials to transport them back to a port of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.  

Texas law enforcement would take the person “back to the southern border and essentially watch that person cross over into Mexico, even if the person is not from Mexico,” Denise Gilman, clinical professor and co-director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law, told VERIFY. 

But, as critics of the bill point out, there is no guarantee that Mexico would accept people who are not Mexican citizens. The country’s government also said in a press release on March 19 that it will not accept migrants who are deported by Texas.

“Mexico recognizes the importance of a uniform migration policy and the bilateral efforts with the United States to ensure that migration is safe, orderly and respectful of human rights, and is not affected by state or local legislative decisions. In this regard, Mexico will not accept, under any circumstances, repatriations by the State of Texas,” the Mexican government said. 

According to the bill analysis, supporters of S.B. 4 say that if Mexico refused to accept someone who Texas sent back, they would “likely not be prosecuted for illegal reentry or refusal to comply with an order to return” as the inability to cross “was out of their control.”

4. Has any other state tried to implement a law similar to S.B. 4?

THE ANSWER

Arizona lawmakers tried to implement a similar law, but Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed it in March 2024. 

Senate Bill 1231 would have made it illegal for someone to “enter Arizona from a foreign nation at any location other than a lawful port of entry.” It would have been enforced by police officers in the state, like S.B. 4 in Texas. 

In her veto letter, Hobbs said the bill presented “significant constitutional concerns” and would have resulted in “costly and protracted” litigation. 

"This bill does not secure our border, will be harmful for communities and businesses in our state, and burdensome for law enforcement personnel," Hobbs wrote in the letter.

Arizona Senate Republicans condemned Hobbs’ decision, arguing it perpetuates an “open border crisis.”

“The Republican-controlled Legislature will continue to prioritize closing our border and providing law enforcement with the tools they need. This veto is a slap in the face to them, Arizona's victims of border-related crimes, and other citizens who will inevitably feel the wrath of this border invasion in one way, shape, or form at the hands of Hobbs and Biden,” Republican State Sen. Janae Shamp, who sponsored the bill, said in a statement.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.