Supreme Court Decision Sparks Showdown Over Texas’ Constitutional Authority to Defend Itself Against Federal Government
The recent Supreme Court decision regarding Texas’ battle with the Biden administration has ignited a heated debate over the Lone Star State’s constitutional authority to defend itself against the federal government. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court temporarily overturned a lower court’s injunction that banned the federal government from cutting razor fencing along the border near Eagle Pass while litigation is ongoing. This ruling has raised questions about Texas’ right to self-defense and its ability to enforce federal immigration laws.
Late Wednesday night, Texas Governor Greg Abbott made a bold statement, declaring his state’s constitutional authority to defend itself against what he called an “invasion” of migrants. He argued that the federal government had failed in its duty to enforce immigration laws, thereby breaking its constitutional pact with the states. Legal experts have supported Abbott’s stance, stating that Texas is well within its constitutional rights to continue building the razor-wire fence despite federal opposition.
Gene Hamilton, vice president and general counsel at America First Legal, praised Abbott’s decision to persist in installing the razor wire, calling it “exactly the right move.” Hamilton believes that unless a federal judge explicitly prohibits Texas from putting up razor wire along the border, the state should continue its efforts. He predicts that this issue will eventually become a test of wills between the federal government and Texas.
However, Hamilton also criticized the Supreme Court’s order, arguing that it gave too much weight to the government’s claims about the wire’s impact on immigration enforcement. He maintained that Texas is not impeding the government’s efforts but rather enhancing them by creating additional barriers that deter illegal crossings. Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, echoed this sentiment, explaining that the Supreme Court’s order only vacated the injunction against tearing down Texas’ barbed wire fencing. It does not prevent Texas from continuing to construct barriers on state or private property.
The question of whether Texas’ actions constitute an “invasion” within the meaning of the Constitution, as Governor Abbott claims, is a point of contention. Article 1, Section 10 states that a state can engage in war or enter into agreements with another state or foreign power only if it is actually invaded or faces imminent danger. Von Spakovsky acknowledges that this interpretation is debatable and legally unresolved.
The Biden administration’s mishandling of border security has led to an unprecedented situation where states like Texas feel compelled to invoke the invasion clause, according to von Spakovsky. Ultimately, the Supreme Court may have to weigh in on the matter. In a 2012 case involving Arizona’s immigration enforcement laws, the Supreme Court ruled against the state. However, the late Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, arguing that states retain inherent power to control their borders. Legal experts speculate that the current Supreme Court may be open to revisiting this decision given the changing dynamics and the increasing number of challenges between states and the executive branch.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday was narrow and focused on the emergency docket, experts believe that Texas will continue pushing the boundaries unless the Court clarifies what the state can and cannot do. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the merits of Texas’ case over the Eagle Pass razor wire on February 7.
In conclusion, Texas’ battle with the federal government over its constitutional authority to defend itself has reached a critical point. Governor Abbott’s declaration of self-defense and his determination to continue building the razor-wire fence have ignited a legal and political showdown. Legal experts are divided on the interpretation of the Constitution and the scope of Texas’ rights. The Supreme Court may ultimately have to weigh in on this contentious issue, potentially reshaping the balance between state and federal authority in matters of border security and immigration enforcement.
