During a hearing to block parts of a Texas law that would let state police arrest people suspected of having crossed the border illegally, a federal judge asserted he believed parts of it were unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra said Wednesday the request to temporarily stop the law from going into effect in two days raised complicated questions and he may not hand down any rulings before Friday, when the law will become effective.

The Legislature passed the law, often referred to as Senate Bill 4, to create a state crime for crossing the Texas-Mexico border without authorization. It also created a pathway for a state judge to find someone guilty and order their removal.

This month two people filed a lawsuit challenging the component of the law that involves the state’s judicial system, arguing it is unconstitutional because the enforcement of immigration law — like the expulsion of people — rests solely in the hands of the federal government.

The suit also challenged the section that creates a state crime for re-entering Texas illegally because, the lawyers argue, the law offers no defense for people who might have a pending immigration status, like a green card, or had federal permission to enter the United States.

Speaking in a downtown Austin courtroom, Ezra said he believed those parts of SB 4 were unconstitutional and called them the “shame” of the law and "superfluous."

“It just doesn’t make any sense to me unless one ignores the Constitution,” he said, after questioning how a state trying to control an international border would be permissible. “The state of Texas is not its own country.”

It marks the second lawsuit against SB 4. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month dismissed the first because it found that the plaintiffs in that case — organizations that work with migrants and immigrants — lacked standing to sue. The appeals court did not weigh in on whether the law was constitutional.

Texas officials have long argued that the law is valid because it mirrors federal immigration law, and the state has a sovereign right to defend its borders against an invasion, which GOP leaders claim was afoot when the Biden administration did not stem illegal crossings.

While the number of crossings hit record highs as state lawmakers debated the bill three years ago, they have been hovering around record lows under the Trump administration and after a Biden administration executive order that largely restricted asylum.

The Biden administration’s Department of Justice challenged the constitutionality of the law but the federal government’s opposition ended under the Trump administration, which plans to file a brief in support of Texas in the latest lawsuit, Ezra said Wednesday from the bench.

Ezra, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, asked Texas if it still claimed that an invasion was underway, considering how much the circumstances have changed at the border.

David Bryant with the attorney general’s office represented Department of Public Safety Director Freeman Martin, the lawsuit’s only named defendant. Bryant acknowledged the quieter border but stopped short of saying the state was abandoning its invasion argument.

He urged the judge to deny the request to block the law and grant a motion to dismiss the case because the law had not yet gone into effect and Martin had not yet decided how state police would proceed in enforcing the law.

DPS is already helping U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement across the state with specific task forces that work with federal immigration agents and individual officers who have been deputized with immigration authorities under two agreements with ICE.

“At this point, there is no imminent enforcement of that law,” Bryant said.

Ezra said he intended to issue an order that addressed the request for a preliminary injunction, a temporary restraining order and the motion to toss the lawsuit.

This article first appeared on The Texas Tribune.