AUSTIN — A group of major Texas municipalities will have to proceed with a lawsuit to halt enforcement of a controversial “sanctuary cities” statute without Fort Worth.

At a Tuesday meeting, city council members voted not to join Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Houston and San Antonio in a federal lawsuit challenging the law, which authorizes Texas peace officers to question those they detain about their immigration status.

“I have the obligation to look at rules that might negatively impact us,” said Carlos E. Flores, the Fort Worth City Council member who proposed enlisting Cowtown in the fight against Senate Bill 4. “Law enforcement has come out and said this will not help us.

“They say they are starting to see effects. It should be challenged.”

The law, set to become effective Sept. 1, was a top priority for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick during the 2017 legislative session, but quickly became the center of a pitched, still-unresolved battle over immigration enforcement.

Critics charge that the law will keep unauthorized immigrants from reporting crimes for fear of arrest.

And they argue that it is unconstitutional on numerous grounds: limiting dissent and enabling unlawful searches and seizures, for instance.

El Paso joined the lawsuit in late June, saying in a statement that SB 4 was an “unfunded mandate” that “is expected to put additional strain” on police.

Flores’ proposal to the council detailed his objections: 

“Under SB4 … local authorities must permit their officers to investigate the immigration status of every person who is lawfully detained or arrested, except in limited situations.

“Any person in custody must produce a Texas driver’s license or ‘similar government-issued identification’ to avoid extended detention for purposes of an immigration status check if required. Thus, the law amounts to a ‘show me your papers’ action.” 

Moreover, according to the proposal: “If an elected or appointed official refuses to comply with SB4 — for example, by endorsing a policy that would limit the enforcement of federal immigration law — he or she will be subjected to a quo warranto proceeding that could result in forfeiture of and removal from such office.”

While there is no legal definition of a sanctuary city, they’re generally considered places that limit local law enforcement cooperation with immigration officers.

Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, the principal author of SB 4, has said that policies in Austin, Travis County and Dallas qualify them as sanctuaries.

The Center for Immigration Studies counts 300 “sanctuary” jurisdictions in the United States, but lists only Travis and Dallas counties in Texas.

Other lists are more expansive, though leaders in some cities dispute the designation.

A.J. “Andy” Louderback, president of the Sheriffs’ Association of Texas, said SB 4 “would restore the consistency people expect of law enforcement.”

In a statement, Patrick said that “in the past six years, criminal aliens have been charged with more than 566,000 crimes in Texas including kidnapping, homicide, burglary and much more.

“SB 4 will ensure that no liberal local official can flaunt the law.”

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund — MALDEF — represents San Antonio, El Paso and other parties in the lawsuit.

“Not only does this ill-considered bill further target immigrant communities, it exposes all Texans to unlawful violations of due process and erodes essential trust between police and the public,” MALDEF said in a statement. “Particularly egregious is the amendment to allow law enforcement agencies to question detained or arrested individuals about their immigration status. 

“While it purports to target dangerous criminals, it actually achieves the opposite by pushing police to focus on immigration status and invites racial profiling by overzealous officers.

Brooke Bischoff, an El Paso-based attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project, which represents the Texas Organizing Project in the lawsuit, said the statute is “incredibly” vague.

“Even though the Texas Legislature is intent on passing this law, the courts are going to look at it independently,” Bischoff said. “We are anticipating a decision any day before Sept. 1.”

Louderback expects further legal conflict over the law, regardless of the outcome in federal district court, where the various cities’, counties’ and organizations’ suits have been consolidated.

“There’ll be further court actions,” Louderback said. “It’ll remain unsettled law till it reaches the Supreme Court.”

John Austin covers the Texas Statehouse for CNHI’s newspapers and websites. Reach him at jaustin@cnhi.com.