On Monday, the Supreme Court lifted an injunction that had prevented the Border Patrol from cutting and removing concertina razor wire that the state of Texas had installed along a migrant crossing at the Rio Grande.
Federal officials view the razor wire as exceedingly dangerous because it could trap bodies in rapid flowing waters, leading to drownings. According to officials, last week three family members—a mother and her two children—died at the river in part because Texas guard and state troopers prevented the Border Patrol from reaching them.
The conservative Fifth Circuit had ordered the injunction put in place pending its final decision, keeping the razor wire intact. But a slim majority of the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberals, overruled the panel.
At stake is more than whether the Border Patrol can safely do its job and help prevent deaths like those that occurred last week. Our entire federal system is premised upon the principle that the federal government has exclusive authority to enforce border policy. States like Texas should not have the right to run interference or act as if they are the border patrol.
And yet, four extremist justices—Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh—would have left the federal government powerless for now to remove a dangerous barrier illegally erected by Texas.
The latest battle over the border should be viewed within the broader question of what is the proper role of the states when it comes to immigration. And this isn’t the only battle that Texas Governor Greg Abbott and extremist Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton have picked to try and claim more of that power for the states.
Today, I’ll discuss how the Supreme Court came to review this case about the cutting and removal of razor wire at the border. Then I’ll zoom out so we can see how this fits into a larger challenge to federal authority over immigration.
Subscribed
Razor wire and the Texas federal courts
When Texas first erected razor wire at the river—the kind designed to catch clothing and tear flesh—it was roundly condemned by human rights organizations, and legal scholars quickly pointed out that Texas was acting extrajudicially. After all, at the border, it is the federal government that oversees enforcement, including what kinds of barriers to erect and how to treat and handle migrants. Many of the border crossings are by asylum seekers, and they are therefore there legally in accordance with international law.
Allowing Texas to insert itself as a state actor would upend all traditional notions of federalism and the limit of states’ rights when it comes to questions of homeland security. But a federal district judge and later the Fifth Circuit didn’t see it that way. On December 19, 2023, a panel in New Orleans temporarily barred Border Patrol agents from cutting or removing the wire in the area around Eagle Pass, with an exception for “medical emergencies.” This was a shocking opinion given its apparent disregard of settled law establishing exclusive federal power over immigration policies and execution.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the injunction barred border agents from doing their jobs, specifically, from having clear access to the U.S.-Mexico border and “reaching migrants who have already entered U.S. territory.” Moreover, the exception for medical emergencies was insufficient because it takes time to cut through the wire, and while the clock is ticking there is a “very real” risk of serious injury or death for those trapped.
Texas claimed that federal border agents were not actually apprehending and processing migrants even after they passed through the gaps in the wire that had been cut by the feds some twenty times. The state had property rights of its own, Texas argued, as well as an interest in stopping “deadly fentanyl,” human trafficking,” and to “minimize the risks to people, both U.S. citizens and migrants, of drowning while making perilous journeys to and through illegal points of entry.” (The fentanyl argument is a red herring; the vast percentage of fentanyl entering the country arrives not via migrants crossing the river at the border, which would be a decidedly foolish way to try and transport drugs, but through smuggling by U.S. citizens and legal residents.)
In January, Texas upped the stakes by moving to block federal agents entirely from the area where they normally launch patrol boats and conduct mobile surveillance. This contributed to the three family members’ deaths because fedeal agents had no clear access to the river. In fact, they couldn’t even determine whether a “medical emergency” was occurring, as Prelogar pointed out.
Prelogar won her appeal for the U.S. government and got the injunction lifted by the High Court, but by only a single vote.
The State of Texas keeps trying to enforce national border policy
Governor Abbott has a multi-billion dollar program in place called “Operation Lone Star” that includes massive allocation of personnel to the border, the erecting of illegal and often dangerous barriers, and most recently a new law that authorizes state and local law enforcement to arrest migrants crossing from Mexico.
This has set up yet another showdown with the federal government. That law goes into effect in March, and it is seen as a test case to challenge a 2012 case, Arizona v. United States, that narrowly left the power to determine immigration policy to the federal government, not the states.
Texas and Louisiana already lost a case where they had challenged the Biden administration’s immigration guidelines and its deportation policies. Those guidelines had been halted nationwide by a federal judge in Texas, who ruled they violated federal law. In that case, by a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court initially and rather alarmingly had allowed the injunction to remain in place. But ultimately it ruled 8-1 in June of 2023 against Texas and Louisiana, with only Justice Alito in dissent, reaffirming the federal government’s central role on matters of immigration policy.
Where things go from here
Governor Abbott and state Attorney General Paxton remain keen to find where the new conservative majority on SCOTUS might rule their way. So they keep pushing and testing the limits. In the razor wire case, while there’s no way to know why four extremist justices dissented from the lifting of the injunction—and it conceivably could have been because the full matter will be taken up shortly anyway by the Fifth Circuit in February—the impression it has left is unmistakable.
As CNN legal analyst and University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck observed, “Whatever one thinks of current immigration policy, it ought not to be that controversial that states cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law—lest we set the stage for Democratic-led states to similarly attempt to frustrate the enforcement of federal policies by Republican presidents.” He added, “That four justices would still have left the lower-court injunction in place will be taken, rightly or wrongly, as a sign that some of those longstanding principles of constitutional federalism might be in a degree of flux.”
In response to the loss before the Supreme Court, a spokesman for Abbott put out a statement claiming that the “absence of razor wire and other deterrence strategies encourages migrants to make unsafe and illegal crossings between ports of entry.” He added that the governor “will continue fighting to defend Texas’ property and its constitutional authority to secure the border.”
But this assertion about unsafe crossings was disputed by federal officials, underscoring the need for a single government policy. Said a White House spokesperson, “Enforcement of immigration law is a federal responsibility. Rather than helping to reduce irregular migration, the State of Texas has only made it harder for frontline personnel to do their jobs and to apply consequences under the law. We can enforce our laws and administer them safely, humanely, and in an orderly way.”
This was for now only a battle over a temporary injunction. The Fifth Circuit will next consider the full case in February, incluing whether to lift the injunction permanently. But it will do so with an understanding that five SCOTUS justices view Texas as unlikely to succeed on the merits. An appeal back up to the Supreme Court is likely, no matter which side prevails at the appellate level.
Texas’s legal argument was frivolous. The vote at the Supremes should have been 9-0. That it wasn’t should make us all fear for our country’s future as a nation that operates under the rule of law!
