REFERENCE: NEW YORK TIMES 2018... I have come up with these questions to better understand this article.

1. In what ways did law enforcement and the court systems work together throughout the process in the article I am having a hard time finding this.
2. What jurisdictions did the court systems have & how did this inform the process or result?
3. please explain to me how the court system functioned in order to arrive at a decision in this case what is the function of the court system n what were the steps that the court system followed, I keep getting confused about the steps they followed.

HOUSTON -- It is often called Texas' "show me your papers" law. but few papers are actually being shown in some of the state's biggest cities. Afederal appeals court on Tuesday largely upheld the Texas immigration law known as Senate Bill 4, which bans so-called sanctuary cities in the state Among oth , the bill allows police officers to question the immig tiqn status of anyone they arrest or detain, including during routine traffic stops. But months after portions of the law went into effect in September, prompting legal battles and erce debates about whether it could lead to widespread racial profiling, officers in some Texas cities appear to be asking about immigration status only in very rare cases. And even alter the court's ruling this week, officials in those cities are not planning to make them change, "From an operational standpoint, from a policy standpoint, it will have no impact," Chief Art Acevedo of the Houston Police Department said of the law. "The problem is the perception problem that it creates, that local police officers are going to be more interested in immigration enforcement of people who don't bother anybody." Here in Houston, the state's most populous city, the police department said officers had asked detainees about their immigration status only twice since Septembert In Austin, city officials said it had happened just once, All of the officer inquiries were reviewed by officials, who said that they were relevant m investigations and did not amount to racial profiling. "We have a code for it so we can track it," said Chief Acevedo, who requires his officers to document all immigration-status interactions "When we reviewed the data two weeks ago, out of tens of thousands of contacts this department has had, we've had two inquiries." Senate Bill 4, or SB, 4, does not require all officers to ask about a person's immigration status, but instead allows them to ask those questions at the officers' discretion. The low number of reported inquiries illustrates the conflict between the state Republican leaders behind the law and local elected ofticials and law enlorcement in largely Democratic major cities like Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. Officials in those cities, several of which have sued Texas seeking to overturn the law, are trying to walk a fine line between complying with the measure and minimizing its impact on their operations. They have followed requests from immigration authorities to hold detainees suspected of being in the country illegally -- another provision in SE. 4 -- while reassuring anxious and outraged immigrants in their communities. Alter the ruling on Tuesday, the mayor of Houston, Sylvester Turner, made an unscheduled appearance at a rally by opponents of the law outside City Hall. "It remains my position that the Houston Police Department is not US. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and H.P.D. should not function as an arm of ICE," Mr. Turner said later in a statement. State leaders were unwaverin "Hopefully this ruling will make the law crystal clear for those liberal public officials in some Texas cities who have flaunted their opposition to SB. 4 and misrepresented its intent," Lt. Gov Dan Patrick, a Republican, said in a statement Supp rters of thel viewed the ruling as ~14 Texas' Ban on 'Sanctuary Cities' Can Begin, Appeals Court Rules The New York \"mes, Mar. 14, 2018. Texas 'Sanctuary Cities' Ban Can Begin The New York \"mes, Mar. 15, 2015. With Measure Banning Migrant Havens, Texas Pushes Further to Right The New York Times, May 10, 2017, Related Subjects 0 Immigration status 0 Right of asylum 0 United States. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit 0 Texas enforcement and federal Immlgratlon authorltles. Republican lawmakers in Florida tried but failed to pass a bill banning sanctuary cities this legislative session. But the Republican speaker of the Florida House, Richard Oorcoran, who has pushed for a crackdown, said the ruling on Tuesday in the Texas case would help their cause. "The Iinchpin of the sanctuary defenders' argument was that courts would find such legislation unconstitutional,\" Mr. Corcoran said in a statement. "We knew they were wrong, and today the coun agreed. Any elected official who thinks they can choose which laws they will and will not follow is sadly mistaken and this ruling reinforces that fundamental American truth.\" In addition to prohibiting sanctuary policies, SB. 4 threatens officials who violate the law with fines, jail time and removal from ofce. The measure was backed by the state's Republican governor and lieutenant governor, and passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature. Austin, Dallas, Houston and other cities and counties sued Texas to block the law, saying it was unconstitutional, opened the door to raciat profiling and would make documented and u immigraqts fearful of reporting crimes and cooperating with the police. The ruling on Tuesday by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit only complicates the situation. Parts of the law went i' 'o' effectafter a court ruling in September. The Fifth Circuit 0 on allows nearly all of the law's provisions to kick in, although lawyers for the localities and groups suing the state said they were considering appealing the decision to either the full Fifth Circuit orthe Supreme Court. Despite upholding most of the law's provisions, the Fifth Circuit's decision could narrow the effect of the law. The ruling suggested that local officials who limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement because of limited resources were not necessarily violating the law. "It is not 100 percent obvious what is allowed and not allowed as far as policymaking," said Thomas A. Saenz, the president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which represents San Antonio and otherjurisdictions and groups in the lawsuit. "You don't know how it's going to be put into effect in the eld." The Fifth Circuit judges struck down one provision of the law a clause that had barred officials even from endorsing policies that limit immigration enforcement, which the judges said violated the First Amendment. But some local leaders are concerned that the free speech rights of city employees remain restricted by the law, because the judges lifted the endorsement prohibition only for elected officials and not for nonelected government personnel. On Wednesday in San Antonio, some of those dynamics seemed to be at play. Shortiy before the start of a news conference held by groups opposed to the law, Councilman Rm] Saldana wondered whether the city's police chief, William McManus, would speak at the event. Mr. Saldana invited Chief McManus -- who is an appointed ofcial, not an elected one -- but the chief did not attend. "I'm protected according to the Fifth Circuit, because I'm an elected official, but the police chief is not," Mr. Saldana said. "He works for the city. It gets us to the point where we might just have to wear a muzzle around our face with respect to whether we can truly represent the interests of community members that come to us." WPVRW Ibeew VorL'Emescnmnaoy