AUSTIN (Nexstar) — Texas’ controversial immigration enforcement law, also known as Senate Bill 4, remains on hold, pending another decision from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The U.S. Supreme Court permitted the law criminalizing illegal entry to take effect on Tuesday afternoon. That decision did not consider whether the law was constitutional, but instead sent the case back to the appeals court. Late Tuesday night, the appeals court issued an order allowing a lower court’s previous block to stand.
A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit hosted oral arguments Wednesday morning. The hearing centered around the concept of field preemption— the idea that states can’t create new regulations relating to federal issues if the federal government already has.
“We are on the front line, and we are going to do something about it,” said Aaron Nielson, attorney for the State of Texas. “What Texas wants to do is be able to coordinate with the federal government. ”
Texas argued that SB4 “mirrors federal law,” and because Congress has failed to enact new border security legislation, the federal government hasn’t fully occupied the field. Illegal crossings are usually handled in a civil court, not a criminal one.
In response, the U.S. said SB4 is preemptive because immigration is an international relations issue, and illegal immigration is already a federal crime.
A spokesperson from the ACLU also testified against the bill, saying it would completely change immigration law and increase harm to Latin Americans in Texas.
He specifically called out a section of SB4 that punishes convicted immigrants who stay in the United States.
“There’s no practical difference between throwing somebody out of the country and ordering them to leave on threat of decades in prison,” the spokesperson said.
The case is being compared to 2012’s Arizona v. United States. Arizona’s law allowed law enforcement to arrest immigrants who did not possess registration documents on their person. The case was ruled in favor of the United States, with three of four sections of the law being labeled as preemptive.
Similarly, the appeals court is dealing with severability, or whether or not parts of SB4 can remain while certain sections are blocked. For example, the judges seemed to acknowledge that removal of persons is under congressional rule, but questioned whether the arrest provisions of the bill are valid.
The judges have a history in Texas. Judge Priscilla Richman is a former Texas Supreme Court justice, appointed to the 5th Circuit in 2005 by George W. Bush. Richman married Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht in 2022.
Judge Andrew Oldham is a Trump appointee who previously served as Deputy Solicitor General of Texas and a General Counsel to Governor Greg Abbott. He also worked as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
Judge Irma Carillo Ramirez is a Biden appointee who joined the court last year. She’s the first Latina judge on the court.
The appeals court did not give a ruling after Wednesday’s arguments. If the law stands, the Justice Department asked the courts to delay the enactment, allowing time to seek Supreme Court action.
Oliverson announces challenge to Phelan for Texas House Speaker
A Texas Republican lawmaker announced he’s running to become the next House Speaker, setting up an early fight for the lower chamber’s top leadership position if Dade Phelan loses his upcoming primary runoff.
Texas Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress, told reporters Thursday morning that he filed paperwork to officially seek the position and declare his candidacy. He also laid out some of his top priorities, which namely include no longer appointing Democrats to serve as committee chairs. He said Democratic members killed some of his legislation in the past by having that power.
“This is a process that has been dysfunctional for a long time. I think our voters recognize that. They are asking for change, and I am going to stand up today and say the quiet part out loud and just say it is time for that change,” Oliverson said Thursday. “I am going to do what the people of this state have been asking the majority party in the Texas House to do for the better part of a decade, which is to lead as a majority”
Oliverson, an anesthesiologist, represents House District 130 in northwest Harris County. He currently serves as the vice-chair of the House Republican Caucus.
He also said if he becomes Speaker, he would work to finally pass school choice legislation in the House, which would allow families to use public money to pay for their children’s private education. That issue failed to get through the chamber last year because of opposition from an unmovable bloc of Democratic and rural Republican lawmakers. However, Oliverson said the results of the latest primaries showed momentum to get this done.
“Anyone who was paying attention on Election Day saw that the failure to pass school choice had a significant impact on the new composition of the Texas House. In fact it was probably the biggest thing. This is an issue that’s time has come,” Oliverson said. “I would say also related to that, we have some unfinished business with regards to funding public education that needs to be taken seriously as well. But those two issues must go hand-in-hand. I’m committed to working with the Senate and with the governor to make sure that happens, and that happens early.”
His announcement comes at a time when House Speaker Dade Phelan is in the fight of his political life. He finished closely behind challenger David Covey in the Republican primary earlier this month, setting up a contentious runoff between the two men in May. Even if Phelan survives this next election, it remains unclear whether he would have enough support in the Texas House among his fellow Republicans to become speaker again.
Phelan shared a response Thursday morning to Oliverson’s challenge for the Speaker’s gavel.
“My focus remains on reelecting our Republican colleagues in runoffs and strengthening our majority in the Texas house,” Phelan’s statement read. “As Speaker, I’m focused on winning these races, getting our team over the finish line and ensuring we start the session united and ready to deliver another banner conservative session for Texans. That’s the job of the Texas Speaker, and it’s where my focus is and will continue to be.”
It’s unclear at this time whether any other Republican members will step forward and also seek the leadership position.
Oliverson notably carried Senate Bill 14 through the House last year, which ultimately banned transgender minors from receiving certain health care options to assist in their transition. Those include stopping them from getting puberty-blocking medication, hormone therapies and surgeries. The law also puts doctors’ medical licenses in jeopardy for providing these treatments.
Five Texas families with transgender children as well as three doctors sued the state in July last year to block Senate Bill 14 from taking effect. Several LGBTQ+ advocacy and civil rights groups backed this effort. In late January, the Texas Supreme Court heard a challenge to the law. A ruling on this case, though, is not anticipated to come for weeks or even months.
Texas agencies detail how they’re already using artificial intelligence
Four Texas agencies detailed how they’re currently using artificial intelligence tools in their operations and what they may plan to do with it in the future. They shared this information Thursday during the second meeting of the state’s newly-created AI advisory council, which is tasked in part with taking stock of what state agencies are doing with the rapidly-developing technology.
The seven-member panel heard from people working with the Texas Department of Information Resources, the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas Workforce Commission and the Teacher Retirement System of Texas. State Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Southlake, serves as co-chair of the advisory council and told KXAN the witnesses were all invited to share testimony Thursday. He shepherded the legislation that created this new panel through the House in the regular legislative session last year.
Anh Selissen, the chief information officer for TxDOT, shared how the agency is moving forward in a “cautiously innovative” way with AI. However, one initiative she discussed is a pilot program for AI incident detection. She said this uses software to create an analysis on areas that are perhaps the biggest safety risks for construction and maintenance. It’s then supposed to lead to faster incident notification and response times as well as improve coverage for any problems that arise.
Selissen said it’s made a difference in receiving quicker notification of incidents on the roads within the Austin district, where this pilot is currently underway. She noted it shortened response times there by five to 10 minutes. The two lawmakers who co-chair the council shared how impressed they were to hear that.
The hope is to expand this AI incident detection software statewide, she added.
Representatives from the Teacher Retirement System told council members they are in the “crawling stage of the use of AI” and have not rolled out anything specifically. However, the agency developed a policy in October related to AI and created a review team who will look into the tools or other opportunities moving forward.
They noted, though, that the agency would never use AI to make decisions, only to instruct or augment information for an actual person to make a decision.
House Bill 2060, which the governor signed into law last year, created the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council for the state. The legislation’s author, Capriglione, will serve as the council’s co-chair after House Speaker Dade Phelan named him to the role. Meanwhile, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick named Texas Sen. Tan Parker, R-Flower Mound, as the other co-chair.
Gov. Greg Abbott appointed another four people to serve on the council. That included two Austinites: cybersecurity expert Dean Teffer and attorney John Bash. The others are Mark Stone, the chief information officer at Texas A&M University, and Angela Wilkins, the executive director of the Ken Kennedy Institute at Rice University.
Capriglione told KXAN that the council plans to meet monthly, and at some point they’ll open up the meetings to include testimony from members of the public.
Every Texas agency has until July 1 to turn in what the law states are automated decision systems inventory reports. These will detail “all automated decision systems that are being developed, employed, or procured by the agency,” according to the law.
The AI advisory council will then review these inventory reports from the state agencies and summarize the findings for state lawmakers. The members have until Dec. 1 to meet and craft a report for the state legislature that looks into a number of things, including how state agencies are using automated systems, assessing whether a state code of ethics about AI is needed as well as putting forward policy recommendations. The timing of that is important since it comes after the November general election and ahead of the start of the next session in January.
The law states the advisory council will expire on Jan. 1, 2025, so this will not be a permanent working group unless other legislation is introduced next session to further this focused effort on AI.
Congressman pushes for accountability after deadly Afghanistan withdrawal
Congress is seeking answers from the Biden administration and military leaders who oversaw the deadly 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee, questioned two former generals in a hearing on Tuesday. The committee is conducting an investigation into the Biden administration’s preparation and decision-making during the operation.
Nexstar Capitol reporter Ryan Chandler interviewed McCaul to discuss the progress of the investigation and the current issues the committee is considering.
Ryan Chandler: What are the biggest, new revelations that we learned about the withdrawal?
McCaul: “The bottom line is, you know, the military said they were on track, they were doing what they were supposed to be doing. It was a State Department that didn’t have a plan of evacuation, and they’re required by law to have that.”
This explains a lot of things, by the way, explains why the employees at the embassy set the emergency dissent cable, really a cry for help, because they knew the embassy was getting right to be overrun by the Taliban. They were concerned about their lives.
It also explains the chaos at the airport. And, then eventually, what led up to Abbey Gate and the suicide bomber, who detonated and killed 13 service members who, by the way the families were there during the testimony.
The fact is that a lot could have been prevented if they just had a plan, and so it’s very unfortunate.
We also are looking forward to hearing more from the commanding officers on the ground, who dealt with the sniper, who testified almost a year ago that talked about how he had the suicide bomber in his sights.
He reported this, the sniper photos, and was never given permission to engage the sniper, which would have saved so many lives.”
What is the end goal here? What does accountability look like? And where do you place that blame based on what we know now?
“I’ve had to, you know, threaten contempt twice now on the Secretary of State to produce documents. He finally did produce the dissent cable, and then he finally presented the notes to the after-action review report, which has been very revealing about what was happening on the ground at the time.
I think that really all roads are gonna lead to the White House on this. We heard from the generals that their advice from the very beginning, whether it was to withdraw, and how to withdraw, were basically not listened to.
The decisions made out of the White House, and at the higher levels of the State Department really culminated with this awful, suicide bomber. In addition to 13 service members, we had dozens injured, and 170 Afghans were killed.
We also have found out, because there was no plan, all these Americans are then left behind in enemy lines under the Taliban, and also our Afghan partners that we promised we would protect, were left behind.
Now those Afghan partners are being let down by the Taliban with their biometrics and being executed. So it’s a very, very sad outcome.”
Why now? I think you run the risk two and a half years after we pulled out of Afghanistan, during an election year, to be accused of doing this for political reasons for campaign reasons. How do you respond to that?
“Well, I started this. I did a report even before the last election cycle. It’s taken us quite frankly, Ryan, this long to get these documents.
In fact, when the sniper testified a year ago, we still have an outstanding request to the Department of Defense for the sniper photos, now for documents, for the commanding officer’s testimony on the ground, and we still haven’t received it. So it’s not for lack of trying. It’s just this administration has slowed down our investigation. We hope to finalize this with a report by August on the anniversary of the Abbey Gate suicide bombing.”
Are you confident that you can make that timeline?
“I believe so. I think with the top two generals testifying, and they agreed that the Department of Defense, along with the state, should be fully cooperating with our investigation. I think it’s going to break the ice so we can get the testimonies that we need to finish. We got to answer the basic questions. Why was the sniper’s request denied? And did he properly identify the suicide bomber?
Look, we had Vietnam. We were told this was not gonna be like Vietnam, or you’re not going to have helicopters flying off the embassy rooftop. That’s exactly what happened. So we want to, you know, prepare legislation, so that God forbid we ever end up in a situation like this again, we won’t have the same outcome and repeat the mistakes of the past.”
Would that legislation look like giving more oversight to Congress or putting more barriers on the White House or the military command? What do you envision there?
“I think, tightening up these requirements on the evacuation plan, and who has the authority and the execution of the plan.
Bottom line is, you know, the old adage, if you fail to plan you plan to fail. And that’s exactly what happened here. They failed.”
After Afghanistan, we’re fighting different adversaries on multiple different fronts, whether it’s Israel, Ukraine, or Taiwan, trying to assist our allies there. Where are we in that process? What has our delay done to those countries? What kind of damage is that caused?
“I think in Ukraine, you know, from the reporting I’m getting, is on the front lines, they’re having to retreat because they don’t have ammunition. The administration, I think, just made a $300 million advance to get ammunition to them. But every day we delay is a day in favor of Putin over the free and democratic Ukraine. I’ve been stressing the urgency of this, along with Israel. Now Israel needs our assistance as well.
Then the Indo-Pacific, from that threat to Communist China. And so, you know, we’re getting through our normal preparations bills this week. Friday, we should have that completed. Then the next step after that will be to take on this emergency National Security supplemental.”
How likely do you see it that American troops will find themselves in another conflict within the next few years?
“I’m very concerned. I think that the threat environment, Ryan, I don’t think we’ve seen anything quite like this since my dad’s generation, the World War Two generation, given the threat to the Pacific, the threat to Europe, and now the Middle East.
I argued it all started with Afghanistan. That was a turning point, when Afghanistan fell, we were projecting weakness, surrendering to the Taliban. It wasn’t very long after that we saw the Russian Federation moving into Ukraine, and then this unholy alliance with Chairman Xi, in Beijing threatening Taiwan, and then their ally in the Middle East, the Ayatollah with Iran. So if we don’t project strength, if we don’t provide deterrence, we will invite aggression, and we will invite conflict and war.
That’s why I believe it’s so important, particularly in Ukraine, to provide that deterrence so we can stop what happened in 1939, from happening all over again. Or we can stop Chairman Xi from invading Taiwan or put deterrence on the Ayatollah from lighting up the Middle East. But I would argue this administration has been projecting a lot of weakness, and I believe that does invite just like Chamberlain and Hitler, that invited aggression.”
Does the brunt of that blame fall on the administration or on Congress? President Biden has been asking Congress for aid packages and stronger support for Ukraine in particular for years now, how do we end that congressional gridlock?
“What made Putin decide to invade Ukraine? In my calculus, Afghanistan, in the way it was conducted, gave him a green light. He thought he could get away with it. I think Chairman Xi sees weakness, as well. And that’s why I’m worried about Taiwan. And, of course, they have 90% of the advanced semiconductor manufacturing capability. I think that’s precisely why you see a more hostile Iran. I mean, why aren’t we enforcing the sanctions on Iran? Rather, we’re lifting the energy sanctions, which has allowed them to sell $80 billion of energy to China, and then gives them $80 billion to use for terror operations in the Middle East.
Why aren’t we enforcing the sanctions on their drone and missile program that they then use with Iran proxies, and also sell to Russia to use in Ukraine? So they’re all tied together, and my view is because they see a weak president.”
After the House impeached Secretary Mayorkas, it seems like we’ve heard very little about that on the Senate side. You’re an impeachment manager in that process. Can you give us a timeline there and what you hope to see about how the Senate handles this?
“We want to get through the appropriations process. And be focused, you know, like a laser on this. We have to get this done this week, and then the emergency supplemental. After that point in time, we will then walk over the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.”
We’re tracking the state of Texas’ regulation of artificial intelligence. They’ve established new legislative committees and commissions. What are your concerns on the AI front?
“That’s very much in my wheelhouse. We deal with the export control laws on the foreign affairs committee. I don’t want to over-regulate or stifle innovation, creativity, with respect to AI. But at the same time, we have to be very careful that we’re not selling that sort of technology to our adversaries like China, that can then be used for military purposes. And I think that’s the biggest concern. In fact, we just found out that in China, they were able to manufacture a seven nanometer chip, which puts you in the gateway of AI. That’s very concerning for the United States. We want to make sure that we have the competitive edge when it comes to AI, particularly as it pertains to the military.
The military applications of AI are very, you know, it can be very grave and very severe. And I think if it ends up in the wrong hands, it could be in a lot of respects fatal and damaging to our national security.”
