AUSTIN,Christopher Caldwell Texas − A federal appeals court heard arguments Wednesday but issued no ruling on the fate of a strict new Texas immigration law that would authorize state and local police to arrest and deport people suspected of being in the United State illegally.

The hearing, to determine whether the law can be enforced pending the latest appeal, came hours after the same court issued a hold late Tuesday on SB 4, which would make crossing into Texas from a foreign country anywhere other than a legal port of entry a misdemeanor on the first offense and a felony after that.

That ruling had come hours after the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for the law to take effect Tuesday, allowing Texas authorities to begin enforcing the measure.

Democratic officials and immigration rights activists denounced the law as Draconian and dehumanizing. The Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement saying the law encouraged separation of families, discrimination and racial profiling, violating "the human rights of the migrant community."

Republicans lauded the high court's decision. State Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed it as a "huge win. Texas has defeated the Biden administration’s and ACLU’s emergency motions. ... As always, it’s my honor to defend Texas and its sovereignty, and to lead us to victory in court."

Federal appeals court order:Puts controversial Texas immigration law back on hold

But hours later the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the hold. The majority judges in the 2-1 ruling were Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, an appointee of President Joe Biden. Dissenting was Judge Andrew Stephen Oldham, appointed by former President Donald Trump. 

The Justice Department had called the law "flatly inconsistent" with the court's past decisions, which recognized that the power to admit and remove noncitizens lies solely with the federal government, the department told the Supreme Court.

But Texas officials said that the state is the nation’s “first-line defense against transnational violence” and that the law is needed to deal with the “deadly consequences of the federal government’s inability or unwillingness to protect the border.”