WASHINGTON >> The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to revive an aggressive Florida immigration law that had been blocked by lower courts. The law would let state officials prosecute migrants in the country without legal permission who enter the state.

The court’s one-sentence order gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. There were no noted dissents.

The court’s ruling is not the last word in the case, which is pending in an appeals court and may return to the justices. The litigation to date has been contentious, with a trial judge holding the state’s attorney general in contempt for what she said was defiance of her ruling.

The Supreme Court has given the Trump administration great leeway in pursuing its immigration agenda.

In a series of orders ruling on emergency application from the administration, the justices have allowed it to lift protections for hundreds of thousands of people who had been granted temporary protected status or humanitarian parole, allowing them to be deported.

The court also allowed the administration to pursue so-called third-country deportations, sending migrants to places other than their home nations without an opportunity to argue that they would face the risk of torture.

Wednesday’s order suggested that the court may take a different view of states’ power over immigration. The law, adopted by Florida lawmakers this year, created two new crimes. The first, entering the state after eluding federal authorities, called for a mandatory nine-month misdemeanor sentence for a first offense and escalating felony sentences for later ones.

The second crime, reentering the state after having been deported, is a felony. The law requires people arrested on suspicion of violating either provision to be jailed without bond while their cases proceed.

Two migrants’ and immigration rights groups quickly challenged the law, saying it interfered with the federal government’s power to set immigration policy and to conduct foreign affairs.

Judge Kathleen Williams of U.S. District Court in Miami temporarily blocked enforcement of the law.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to pause Williams’ ruling, saying it was likely that federal immigration laws preempted the state law. The panel put the appeal on a fast track, and the Trump administration filed a brief supporting the state.

At least six other states have similar laws, all enacted in the past two years, as Republican lawmakers have sought to harness the energy President Donald Trump has brought to the immigration issue and to stiffen penalties for migrants without legal residency status. Every court that has considered the laws has ruled against them, according to a Supreme Court brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the challengers.

Those courts relied on Arizona v. United States, a 2012 decision in which the Supreme Court endorsed broad federal power over immigration by a 5-3 vote.

“Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration” while the federal government tries to address them, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, “but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

The court’s composition has changed since then, and officials in Florida had been hopeful that the current justices would alter the balance of power between the federal government and the states in the realm of immigration.

In Florida’s emergency application, James Uthmeier, the state’s attorney general, said there was no conflict between federal law and the relevant parts of the state statute.

“Florida carefully crafted both provisions to precisely track, mimic and depend upon federal immigration law,” he wrote, adding that a contrary view “strikes at the heart of states’ ability to protect their citizens from the devastating effects of illegal immigration.”

On July 3, after that brief was filed, a divided three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit ruled against a similar Texas law.