U.S. Supreme Court sells out American border security

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a horrific decision, granting a stay that permits agents of the Biden administration to remove barriers along Texas’s border. This decision effectively pauses an earlier ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that supported Texas’s measures to strengthen border security. The Supreme Court’s decision came with a narrow five-to-four majority, with two justices appointed by Republican presidents siding with their Democrat-appointed colleagues.

Previously, the Fifth Circuit had favored Texas in a decision penned by Judge Kyle Duncan on December 19. Judge Duncan highlighted the escalating issues at the border, noting a significant increase in migrant encounters and the exploitation of this crisis by drug cartels for trafficking humans and illegal drugs like fentanyl.

Texas, in response to these challenges, initiated Operation Lone Star, which included laying concertina wire along parts of the riverfront, significantly reducing illegal crossings. This cooperation between Texas law enforcement and Border Patrol was noted as effective in areas like El Paso and the Rio Grande Valley.

However, issues arose with Border Patrol agents cutting the wire without notifying Texas, except in emergencies like potential drownings or heat exhaustion cases. Texas then filed a lawsuit against federal agents for this action, citing it as both a trespass to chattels and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The DOJ, led by Attorney General Merrick Garland, moved to dismiss this case, asserting federal immunity from such suits. The New Orleans-based appeals court, however, denied this claim of immunity, stating that the APA’s terms waive this immunity for suits seeking nonmonetary relief in federal court.

Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit rejected several other DOJ arguments, including the assertion that Texas’s tort claims could only be brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The appellate court also dismissed claims of intergovernmental and jurisdictional immunity raised by the DOJ.

In the trial court, it was found that the Border Patrol exceeded its authority by cutting Texas’s c-wire fence for non-emergency purposes. The public interest was noted to support clear protections against government intrusion and control over property rights.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration in the Supreme Court, applied for a stay of the injunction. This was granted in a close vote, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh opposing. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both Republican appointees, sided with the three liberal justices to issue the stay.

This decision has raised concerns among those working to address the border crisis, as it suggests that Justices Roberts and Barrett see a reasonable chance of the Supreme Court eventually agreeing with one or more of the DHS’s arguments previously rejected by the Fifth Circuit.

This development is particularly significant in the context of the ongoing political dynamics and the potential upcoming presidential race between Joe Biden and 45th President Donald Trump. The case in question is Department of Homeland Security v. Texas, No. 23A607, in the Supreme Court of the United States.