- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 10,566
- Reaction score
- 7,961
- Location
- So. California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
But...but...but!!!
States, you dont **** with the feds. This is the feds turf.
The Supreme Court is allowing US Border Patrol agents to remove razor wire deployed by Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott’s security initiative at the US-Mexico border while the state’s legal challenge to the practice plays out.
The vote was 5-4.
The justices’ order is a major victory for President Joe Biden in his ongoing dispute with Abbott over border policy, which had become especially fraught in recent days after three migrants drowned in a section of the Rio Grande that state officials have blocked agents’ access to, prompting the administration to further press for the high court’s intervention.
A federal appeals court last month ordered the Border Patrol agents to stop removing razor wire along a small stretch of the Rio Grande while court proceedings continue, and the Justice Department asked the justices earlier this month to step in on an emergency basis to wipe away that order, which they did on Monday.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said they would have denied the federal request.
Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said that while the order is a victory for the Biden administration, the delay in issuing it raises future questions.
“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,” Vladeck said. “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.”
Lawyers for the Biden administration argued that the appeals court ruling “turns … on its head” the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which states that federal laws take precedence over state laws.
“The result of Texas’s position would be that States across the country could invoke their laws to impede the federal government’s exercise of its authority,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in court papers.
“If that injunction is left in place,” Prelogar stressed, “it will impede Border Patrol agents from carrying out their responsibilities to enforce the immigration laws and guard against the risk of injury and death, matters for which the federal government, not Texas, is held politically accountable.”
States, you dont **** with the feds. This is the feds turf.
Supreme Court allows Biden administration to remove razor wire on US-Mexico border in 5-4 vote
The Supreme Court is allowing US Border Patrol agents to remove razor wire deployed by Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott’s security initiative at the US-Mexico border while the state’s legal challenge to the practice plays out.
The vote was 5-4.
The justices’ order is a major victory for President Joe Biden in his ongoing dispute with Abbott over border policy, which had become especially fraught in recent days after three migrants drowned in a section of the Rio Grande that state officials have blocked agents’ access to, prompting the administration to further press for the high court’s intervention.
A federal appeals court last month ordered the Border Patrol agents to stop removing razor wire along a small stretch of the Rio Grande while court proceedings continue, and the Justice Department asked the justices earlier this month to step in on an emergency basis to wipe away that order, which they did on Monday.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said they would have denied the federal request.
Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said that while the order is a victory for the Biden administration, the delay in issuing it raises future questions.
“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,” Vladeck said. “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.”
Lawyers for the Biden administration argued that the appeals court ruling “turns … on its head” the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which states that federal laws take precedence over state laws.
“The result of Texas’s position would be that States across the country could invoke their laws to impede the federal government’s exercise of its authority,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in court papers.
“If that injunction is left in place,” Prelogar stressed, “it will impede Border Patrol agents from carrying out their responsibilities to enforce the immigration laws and guard against the risk of injury and death, matters for which the federal government, not Texas, is held politically accountable.”
