This should get a rise out of a few of you...
[HEADING=2][SIZE=7]Supreme Court Backs Biden for Now in Dispute With Texas Over Border Barrier[/SIZE][/HEADING]
A federal appeals court had ruled that Border Patrol agents may not remove concertina wire erected by the state except for medical emergencies.
The Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration on Monday in a dispute over a concertina-wire barrier erected by Texas along the Mexican border. The justices temporarily lifted an appeals court’s ruling that had generally prohibited federal officials from removing the wire.
The Supreme Court’s brief order gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s three liberal members to form a majority.
The dispute is part of an escalating legal battle between Texas and the Biden administration over border security.
Since 2021, Gov. Greg Abbott, a third-term Republican, has mounted [an aggressive multibillion-dollar campaign]('https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/26/us/texas-greg-abbott-border-migrants.html') to impose more stringent measures at the southern border to deter migrants from entering the country. Those include erecting concertina wire along the banks of the Rio Grande as well as installing [a barrier of buoys]('https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/01/us/texas-border-buoys-court.html') in the river.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last month limited the ability of federal Border Patrol agents to cut the wire.
The panel prohibited agents “from damaging, destroying or otherwise interfering with Texas’ c-wire fence” while the appeal is pending, but made an exception for medical emergencies that are likely to result in “serious bodily injury or death.”
Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general, sued the administration in October, saying that Border Patrol agents had unlawfully destroyed state property and thwarted the state’s efforts to block migrants from crossing the border. According to the lawsuit, border agents cut the wire at least 20 times “to admit aliens illegally entering Texas.”
Migrants have been injured by the wire, and [drownings in the Rio Grande’s swift currents]('https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/14/us/migrants-drown-texas-dispute.html?searchResultPosition=1') have [become more common]('https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/us/texas-border-migrants-abbott.html'). In [court papers]('https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A607/295288/20240109144901203_23A607%20Response%20to%20Application%20for%20Vacatur.pdf'), Mr. Paxton argued that federal officials using bolt cutters and forklifts had destroyed parts of the barrier for no reason other than to allow migrants to enter.
In the Biden administration’s [emergency application]('https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A607/294669/20240102145055112_23A%20DHS%20v.%20Texas%20app.pdf'), Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar rejected the contention that federal officials had done anything improper. “Border Patrol agents’ exercise of discretion regarding the means of enabling the apprehension, inspection and processing of noncitizens in no way suggests that they cut wire for impermissible purposes,” she wrote.
Calling the appeals court’s injunction “manifestly wrong,” Ms. Prelogar said the barrier interfered with Border Patrol agents’ responsibilities.
“The injunction prohibits agents from passing through or moving physical obstacles erected by the state that prevent access to the very border they are charged with patrolling and the individuals they are charged with apprehending and inspecting,” she wrote. “And it removes a key form of officer discretion to prevent the development of deadly situations, including by mitigating the serious risks of drowning and death from hypothermia or heat exposure.”
The exception for medical emergencies was insufficient, Ms. Prelogar wrote. “It can take 10 to 30 minutes to cut through Texas’ dense layers of razor wire,” she wrote. “By the time a medical emergency is apparent, it may be too late to render lifesaving aid.”
The injunction was also unjustified, Ms. Prelogar wrote. “Balanced against the impairment of federal law enforcement and risk to human life,” she wrote, “the court of appeals cited as Texas’ harm only the price of wire and the cost of closing a gap created by Border Patrol agents.”
Mr. Paxton asked the justices to strike a different balance.
“It is in the public interest to deter unlawful agency action and to respect property rights,” he wrote. “It is also in the public interest to reduce the flow of deadly fentanyl; combat human trafficking; protect Texans from unlawful trespass and violent attacks by criminal cartels; and minimize the risks to people, both U.S. citizens and migrants, of drowning while making perilous journeys to and through illegal points of entry.”
Not really. Would really like to read and understand the rationale behind the decision. Texas is pretty smart, they will figure out a workaround.
For the Biden administration to bring this case, at least we have it on record that border security IS NOT a concern for the party.
