Supreme Court Allows Biden Admin To Remove Texas Border

( – On Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton expressed his determination to continue the legal battle, following the Supreme Court’s decision to approve an emergency request from the Biden administration. This decision permits Border Patrol officers to dismantle the razor wire barriers that Texas had erected at the southern border.

Paxton criticized the Supreme Court’s interim decision in a Fox News Digital statement, describing it as an endorsement of what he perceives as the Biden administration’s unlawful support for what he termed as an “invasion” of the United States by foreign nationals. He argued that removing Texas’s border barriers would neither uphold the law nor protect American citizens. Paxton affirmed his commitment to defending Texas’s rights.

The Supreme Court, in a close 5-4 vote, authorized the federal government to continue removing the fence Texas installed along the southern border near Eagle Pass, pending ongoing litigation. This decision saw Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett siding with the court’s liberal justices. Conversely, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh opposed lifting the injunction, as noted by the court. Paxton had previously filed a lawsuit against the administration in October, accusing it of hampering Texas’s border security efforts and hindering its ability to prevent illegal entry.

The Biden administration has maintained that U.S. Border Patrol agents are obligated to apprehend migrants once they enter U.S. territory, arguing that the razor wire hinders their ability to patrol the border effectively. The administration also contends that federal immigration laws override Texas’s border control initiatives.

A preliminary injunction was initially granted by a panel from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Department of Justice (DOJ) subsequently requested the Supreme Court to intervene, allowing the federal government to remove the razor wire at its discretion.

The DOJ’s appeal to the Supreme Court argued that the appellate court’s decision contradicted the Supremacy Clause by prioritizing Texas law over federal law. The DOJ warned that such a rationale could leave the federal government vulnerable to states imposing their immigration law enforcement standards.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) expressed its support for the Supreme Court’s decision, emphasizing that immigration law enforcement is a federal responsibility. A DHS spokesperson criticized Texas’s actions as counterproductive to managing irregular migration, complicating the tasks of frontline personnel and undermining the lawful and orderly administration of immigration laws.

Brandon Judd, President of the National Border Patrol Council, expressed concerns that the ruling might encourage further illegal immigration. In a statement to Fox News, Judd lamented that Border Patrol agents would be preoccupied with processing migrants instead of focusing on criminal activities at the border. He argued that, contrary to the administration’s claims of enhancing border security, the decision would have the opposite effect, noting that agents supported Texas’s measures in the absence of effective federal border security policies.

This legal conflict is one of several disputes between the federal government and Texas regarding the southern border situation. The DOJ has also filed a lawsuit against Texas over its deployment of buoys in the Rio Grande to prevent illegal crossings and challenged a recent Texas law empowering state and local law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants.

The situation escalated when Texas took control of the Shelby Park area in Eagle Pass, restricting Border Patrol access. This move prompted the administration to consider additional legal action.