Staff Reports
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court temporarily sided with the Biden administration by allowing federal officers to cut concertina wire placed on the southern border by Texas. However, former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy argues that the law regarding border protection actually favors Texas. McCarthy explains that the Supreme Court did not order Texas to do anything, and the lower courts cannot prevent federal authorities from dismantling barriers at this time.
Ex-Fed Prosecutor: How SCOTUS Can Side with TX and Crush Biden's Planhttps://t.co/Kq23eI8pzz
— (((TW))) (@Timgw2) January 27, 2024
Texas Governor Greg Abbott intends to assert the state’s right to self-defense and continue installing more razor wire along the border. Abbott cites Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which requires the federal government to protect the states against invasion. He argues that the federal government is not fulfilling its duty to enforce laws that deny illegal entry into the country, and therefore, Texas has the right to take action.
Abbott highlights Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, which allows states to engage in self-defense when in imminent danger. He believes that the mass-parole authority claimed by President Biden does not exist and that Biden’s actions are in violation of the law. McCarthy agrees, stating that Biden is defying the law, not Texas.
However, some experts, including George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, believe that the federal court system may side with the president. While acknowledging the crisis at the southern border, Turley points out that the courts are likely to interpret the constitutional provisions of “invasion” and “imminent danger” in a specific context, which may not align with Texas’ argument.
As this legal battle unfolds, it remains to be seen how the courts will interpret the constitutional duties of the federal government and the rights of the states in this matter. With the border crisis continuing and the Biden administration’s parole policies under scrutiny, the outcome of this case could have significant implications for immigration and border security.
