AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "NewsHour."

After a series of legal back-and-forths, a controversial immigration law in Texas is back in the hands of an appeals court.

GEOFF BENNETT: The law gives state officials the power to arrest migrants whom they believe crossed into the U.S. illegally.

After a Supreme Court ruling yesterday allowed Texas to enforce the law, a federal appeals court put it back on hold and a three-judge panel heard arguments today on whether it should be enforced.

AMNA NAWAZ: Gaige Davila from Texas Public Radio has been covering all of this and joins me now.

So, Gaige, the last 24 hours have really been legal whiplash for this law known as S.B.4.

As we speak now, where do things stand with the law and its implementation?

GAIGE DAVILA, Texas Public Radio: Well, right now, S.B.4 is not law.

And another hearing is expected in early April, which will decide whether to allow some provisions of that law to continue while litigation against it is being ruled on.

So, the state met in court today to discuss it.

And, initially, Texas argued that this law should be enforced while litigation against it is pending.

But by the end of the hearing and some questioning by the judges, the state asked if at the very least that state officers could arrest migrants to give them federal immigration -- give them over to federal immigration authorities.

But the judges said that this was already something that they do with current trespassing laws, because migrants have already been arrested for that under Operation Lone Star.

But just to clarify, that law is not law, even though it was for a few hours yesterday evening.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Gaige, what are you hearing from those Texas state officials, the police departments and sheriff's departments on the ground?

Are they ready and resourced to enforce this kind of law?

GAIGE DAVILA: I think, with police, there's almost a resounding confusion how to enforce this law, because officers are not trained for immigration enforcement, which adds to how much police are used as solvents to what are ultimately policy issues.

To give an example, the Baird County sheriff, which is in San Antonio, has commented on how enforcing this law puts a huge liability on the department if they arrest somebody unjustly.

On the legal and advocacy end, there's this fear of increased racial profiling as well among border towns and in the state at large.

And there's questions on how exactly this would even be carried out, right, in terms of deportations.

Mexico has already said that they would not accept deportations from Texas, and the state didn't explain this process either when it was in court today.

AMNA NAWAZ: What are you hearing from any Border Patrol officials?

I mean, these are the federal officers who are tasked with and have the authority over enforcement in these border areas.

They are increasingly stretched thin amid these record numbers we're seeing at the U.S. southern border.

Do they want state officers to be able to act in this way?

GAIGE DAVILA: Well, often Border Patrol do use police or sheriff officers when they need the assistance.

But, as far as I know, they have not commented on this specific policy and whether it will help them.

But I do know that the Border Patrol and Texas National Guard are currently at odds in Eagle Pass in terms of who is able to do what and where.

B.P.

has called for more resources before, which was part of a bill that has famously stalled in Congress, of course, but police is not necessarily part of that.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, earlier today, we should note, Texas Governor Greg Abbott was speaking at a Texas policy summit.

He reaffirmed his commitment to S.B.4, even as it pinballs through the courts.

Here's part of what he had to say.

GOV.

GREG ABBOTT (R-TX): Texas has a right to defend ourselves and we will use that authority to declare an invasion and fight back against that invasion!

AMNA NAWAZ: Gaige, as you know, this has really fueled a high-stakes state and federal standoff between Governor Abbott and the Biden administration.

What are the implications for this beyond Texas and beyond immigration?

GAIGE DAVILA: I think this should be seen as an attempt to codify Operation Lone Star, but without any real infrastructure to see it through and, as advocates and some Democratic members of Congress have pointed out, that these are ultimately policy issues and not policing issues.

But what is happening here, much like with abortion rights through the last few years, is the state attempting to codify culture war issues as policy that don't address the needs of people in border communities or the state at large.

In fact, it kind of outright harms them.

So the implication there is that there are efforts at addressing these issues and others via policy that are routinely blocked by a nationalist wing of the GOP.

And we will likely see that continue without some sort of federal or congressional intervention.

AMNA NAWAZ: So you mentioned this before is not law now.

What do we expect to happen next?

GAIGE DAVILA: Well, it's going to be a waiting game for these next few weeks in the courts until it is heard on again.

But, at least, at the very least, Texas police cannot arrest migrants for seeking asylum, which they are legally allowed to do so.

So, as of now, nothing can move on that law, but it will just be a waiting game until early April.

AMNA NAWAZ: Gaige Davila of Texas Public Radio joining us tonight.

Gaige, thank you very much.

GAIGE DAVILA: Thank you so much.