The Supreme Court has granted permission for US Border Patrol agents to remove the razor wire that was deployed as part of Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott’s security initiative at the US-Mexico border. This decision comes as the state’s legal challenge to the practice is still ongoing.
The vote resulted in a narrow margin of 5-4.
The justices’ decision is a significant win for President Joe Biden in his ongoing disagreement with Abbott over border policy. The situation had become particularly tense after three migrants tragically drowned in a section of the Rio Grande that state officials have restricted agents’ access to. As a result, the administration has intensified its efforts to seek the high court’s intervention.
In a recent development, a federal appeals court directed the Border Patrol agents to halt the removal of razor wire along a small portion of the Rio Grande until further court proceedings. Responding to this, the Justice Department urgently requested the justices to intervene and overturn this order, which they successfully did on Monday.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh expressed their disagreement with the federal request.
According to Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, the recent order can be seen as a win for the Biden administration. However, the timing of its release does raise some concerns for the future.
“Regardless of one’s opinion on current immigration policy, it should not be a matter of controversy that states cannot impede the federal government from enforcing federal law. This is to avoid a situation where Democratic-led states may also try to obstruct the enforcement of federal policies by Republican presidents,” Vladeck stated. It may be interpreted, whether accurately or not, that the fact that four justices chose to uphold the lower-court injunction suggests that certain principles of constitutional federalism could be undergoing some changes.
According to White House spokesman Angelo Fernández Hernández, the Supreme Court’s decision to lift the injunction is seen as a positive outcome. This will allow frontline personnel to carry out their important federal duties without any hindrance, particularly in urgent humanitarian situations and law enforcement.
According to a statement from Abbott’s spokesperson, Andrew Mahaleris, the lack of certain security measures may be encouraging migrants to make unsafe and illegal crossings between ports of entry. He emphasized that the governor is committed to protecting Texas’ property and upholding its constitutional authority to secure the border.
The Department of Homeland Security expressed its approval of the high court’s order, according to a spokesperson’s statement.
The spokesperson emphasized that the enforcement of immigration law falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Instead of aiding in the reduction of irregular migration, the actions taken by the State of Texas have only increased the challenges faced by frontline personnel in carrying out their duties and enforcing the law. We can ensure the proper enforcement and administration of our laws, prioritizing safety, humanity, and order.
The Biden administration’s legal team contended before the Supreme Court that the appeals court decision completely distorts the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal laws hold greater authority than state laws.
“The potential outcome of Texas’s stance is that various states could utilize their laws to hinder the federal government’s exercise of its authority,” expressed Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar in court documents.
“If the injunction remains in place,” Prelogar emphasized, “it will hinder Border Patrol agents from fulfilling their duties to enforce immigration laws and protect against the potential for harm and fatalities. These are matters for which the federal government, not Texas, bears political responsibility.”
In subsequent filings to the high court, Prelogar highlighted the recent actions taken by Texas, such as the installation of new barriers and the deployment of military Humvees. These actions are seen as an escalation of the state’s efforts to impede the government’s border patrol duties. Prelogar emphasized the need for swift intervention in this matter.
During her court testimony, she highlighted Texas’ alleged violation of an important part of the injunction. This violation pertains to the ability of federal agents to cut wire in order to address medical emergencies. She argued that recent tragic incidents, including the drownings of two children and a woman, as well as the rescue of two other migrants by Mexican officials on the US side of the Rio Grande, serve as evidence that Texas is determined to impede Border Patrol’s access to the border, even in emergency situations.
Last year, the state filed a lawsuit to halt the actions of Border Patrol agents who were cutting the concertina wire. The state claimed that this act was illegal as it resulted in the destruction of state property and compromised security, all in an effort to aid migrants in crossing the border.
The 5th Circuit is currently considering the legal questions surrounding the federal government’s authority to remove the wire that Texas had installed on the banks of the Rio Grande. The oral arguments in the case are scheduled for February 7.
Texas strongly opposed the Biden administration’s request, arguing that the Supreme Court should not intervene at this time.
Lawyers representing the state pointed out that following the Biden administration’s urgent plea to the justices, the appeals court agreed to accelerate its examination of the case. The state had contended that this ruling weakened the necessity for swift action by the nation’s highest court.
According to court documents, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other lawyers for the state argue that the act of cutting Texas’s fencing to allow a large number of people into the state is unrelated to inspection, apprehension, or removal.
According to the court, the actions of the administration are completely unrelated to what Congress authorized, as shown by the district court’s findings,” they informed the court.
The White House has consistently urged Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform to address pressing issues at the US-Mexico border. Biden admitted to reporters on Friday that the border is not secure, urging lawmakers to provide the necessary funding for additional resources.
In Monday’s statement, Fernández Hernández expressed the president’s commitment to pursuing a bipartisan agreement with Congress that encompasses both additional resources and meaningful policy reforms.