Texas Tribune.
Pasó rápido.
El miércoles, el Departamento de Justicia de EE. UU. demandó a Texas por su antigua ley estatal, que permite a los estudiantes indocumentados obtener matrícula estatal. Apenas se había presentado la demanda, Texas se rindió sin oponer resistencia y solicitó a un juez que anulara la ley, lo cual hizo.
Todo el proceso se resolvió en cuestión de horas, y tanto el fiscal general de Estados Unidos como el fiscal general de Texas se atribuyeron el mérito del fallo.
Es inusual ver a un estado colaborar tan estrechamente con el gobierno federal para usar los tribunales y anular una ley estatal que la Legislatura había permitido mantener, según expertos legales. Es particularmente sorprendente en Texas, un estado con una orgullosa historia de lucha contra el gobierno federal y de posturas agresivas respecto al limitado papel que debería tener el gobierno federal dentro de sus fronteras.
El sistema judicial tiene como objetivo resolver desacuerdos legítimos. La Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos ha sostenido durante mucho tiempo que los tribunales no pueden decidir sobre demandas colusorias o amistosas cuando no existe controversia, ya que ambas partes colaboran para lograr un resultado deseado. Algunos expertos cuestionan si la demanda original del Departamento de Justicia contra Texas podría ser desestimada por estos motivos.
Los republicanos de Texas fueron pioneros en la matrícula estatal para estudiantes indocumentados. Ahora celebran su fin .
“Tiene que haber una disputa real”, dijo David Coale, abogado de apelaciones de Dallas. “Si todos están de acuerdo, ¿por qué están en el tribunal? No es una demanda”.
Al menos un grupo defensor de los derechos de los inmigrantes, Familias y Estudiantes Inmigrantes en la Lucha, declaró en una entrevista que está considerando emprender acciones legales para intentar restablecer el programa. Coale afirmó que podrían ser incluidos en la demanda como partes afectadas, aunque el juez ya haya dictado sentencia firme, y apelar la sentencia en su totalidad ante un tribunal superior.
“Quizás algunos jueces muy conservadores vean esto y digan: ‘Esto no parece un caso ni una controversia. Parece un acuerdo’”, dijo Coale.
“Parece… una colusión”
La ley de Texas que ofrece a los inmigrantes indocumentados matrícula universitaria equivalente al nivel estatal ha estado vigente desde 2001. A pesar de la creciente oposición conservadora, la Legislatura de Texas nunca ha modificado la ley.
This session, a bill to repeal the law stalled after passing out of a Senate committee. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the influential leader of the Senate and a longtime opponent of the law, told The Texas Tribune he didn’t bring the bill up for a vote because it didn’t have the votes to pass in the upper chamber.
When the Texas Legislature gaveled out on Monday, immigration organizers breathed a sigh of relief — believing the tuition policy was safe at least until the Legislature returns in two years.
“Less than 48 hours later, we find out Texas has been in cahoots with the federal government to undo this through a backdoor,” said Cesar Espinoza, executive director of Immigrant Families and Students in the Fight, which goes by its Spanish acronym FIEL.
It’s unclear exactly how this litigation came to be, but in a press release, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi credited Paxton for “swiftly working with us” to undo the state law.
The six-hour time frame from the lawsuit being filed to the case being resolved makes it likely this was pre-orchestrated to some degree, said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute.
“It seems — and I emphasize the word seems, because, obviously, I don’t know for sure — but it seems like that kind of collusion happened,” Somin said. “Texas and the feds may have agreed beforehand that this suit would be filed and Texas would essentially agree to not contest it, and thereby, they get around the existing law.”
Paxton did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.
It’s a “little ironic,” Somin said, that Trump and Texas are being accused of using this strategy.
Conservatives frequently accuse Democratic presidential administrations of courting lawsuits from liberal groups that allow them to agree to consent decrees that reflect policies they likely couldn’t get through Congress. U.S. Rep. Pat Fallon, a Texas Republican, joined others in probing the Biden administration’s use of “sue-to-settle” lawsuits around environmental policies, like water pollution rules for meat processors, in 2023.
“Traditionally, conservatives have argued that that’s not okay,” Somin said. “And now, with this, [Texas] has adopted tactics, ironically, from the left-wing playbook.”
What Texas and the DOJ have done here goes far beyond “sue-and-settle,” according to Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck. Those cases usually have an interest group of directly impacted people trying to push the federal government for an outcome, not the federal government trying to change a state law. They also typically take far longer than six hours to resolve, he said.
“None of the sue-and-settle examples that have been the source of public outcry involve effectively nullifying a state law,” he said. “It’s one thing for the federal government to agree to a settlement that impacts a federal regulation, but here you have a state settling with the federal government to, basically erase a state law from the books.”
He noted that this case was filed in Wichita Falls, where U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, long a favored judge for the Texas attorney general and conservative litigants, hears all cases.
“There’s a reason that, out of all the courthouses in all the land, they walked into this one,” Vladeck said.
A blueprint for red states
Texas spent most of the last four years aggressively battling the Biden administration, building on a reputation it developed during the Obama years as the bulwark against Democratic policies. Paxton, and Abbott before him, fought in the courts to try to ensure the state was governed by the narrowest interpretation of federal authority.
The state took a particularly hard line on immigration. The Biden administration sued Texas repeatedly for violating the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says that federal law supersedes state law when they are in conflict. Texas fought back, hard, on initiatives like Operation Lone; a state law that allows local officials to arrest migrants; and a plan to put buoys and razor wire in the Rio Grande Valley.
It’s unsurprising that Texas is more cooperative with the Trump administration on these issues, politically and personally. Several former employees from the Texas Office of the Attorney General have landed in high places in the administration, among them Paxton’s former top deputy Aaron Reitz, who now leads the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice. Paxton is also courting Trump’s endorsement for his Senate race.
Vladeck said this suit is an outgrowth of the increasing politicization of attorneys general offices nationwide.
“This highlights one of the real problems with that development, which is, you can have a scenario where a sufficiently politically motivated state attorney general, working with the right Justice Department can basically make an end-run around the democratic process in their state,” he said.
Texas’ willingness to let any federal administration come in and tell it what to do about its state laws has raised some eyebrows among legal experts and political scientists.
“It gets you a policy result you like today, but it’s at the price of giving up some sovereignty,” Coale said. “The next time the federal government comes calling, it may not be quite so friendly and you may regret having given them that ground.”
Robert Henneke, director ejecutivo y asesor general de la Fundación de Políticas Públicas de Texas, rechazó la idea de que la acción tuviera un carácter político, afirmando que la demanda se ajustaba al compromiso a largo plazo del Departamento de Justicia con la aplicación de la ley federal. Henneke presentó una demanda, finalmente infructuosa, en 2022 impugnando la ley de Texas.
“Estados como Texas han violado claramente la ley federal en este tema”, declaró el jueves. “De hecho, es sorprendente que esto no se haya planteado antes”.
Así como la ley original de Texas fue un modelo para otros estados, esta no batalla legal puede dar a otros estados republicanos cobertura política para eliminar sus beneficios de matrícula para estudiantes indocumentados, dijo Gary Reich, un politólogo de la Universidad de Kansas, que estudia estas leyes.
“Me imagino a estados liderados por republicanos usando esto para eludir la difícil tarea de derogar estas leyes en la legislatura, permitiéndoles al mismo tiempo atribuirse parte del mérito”, dijo. “Y si no lo hacen, el Departamento de Justicia puede acudir a ellos ahora y decirles que Texas se rindió. ¿Y tú?”
.
