The response filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is almost laughable in its attempt to bury the implications of the state’s position. “This narrow, fact-based dispute” does not merit the court’s attention, he wrote, observing that “the Fifth Circuit’s injunction involves a four-mile stretch of the 1,951-mile U.S.- Mexican”. This amounts to arguing that the case the Supreme Court will hear this week on whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy is irrelevant because the dispute is over his eligibility in the Republican primary. in only one of the 50 states.
“The defendants admit that they are destroying property that does not belong to them,” the State complains in its brief. “Texas has an exclusive interest in its fences.” That is undoubtedly the case, but the question is whether Texas had the right to place its barbed wire in such a way as to obstruct federal agents who have every right, even duty, to be there. A federal law dating from 1952 essentially gives the federal government carte blanche in an area that extends 25 miles inland from all of the country’s borders.
Regardless, this case is no more about fencing than the potential landmark administrative law case that was argued in January was about the fishing boat owners on whose behalf this case was brought. This case, and another similar one, involves what is known as the Chevron doctrine and could upend federal regulations on issues ranging from health care to the environment.
The fact is that business is always about problems and not about tangible objects or, with rare exceptions, about individuals. The judges know it. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said as much during recent remarks at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. “By the time you get to the Supreme Court, it’s no longer about your client,” she said. “This is not their case. It is about how this legal issue will affect the development of law.
So what is this case really about, Department of Homeland Security v. Texas? It is the manifestation of the declaration of war in a bold letter that Mr. Abbott sent to President Biden in November 2022. Addressing the president as something less than a peer head of state, the governor of Texas charged him with “sustained dereliction of duty.” » by failing to properly enforce federal immigration law. As a result, Mr. Abbott continued, Texas was forced to invoke Article I, Section 3, Clause 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that no State may “engage in war unless unless it is actually invaded or is in such imminent danger as to permit no delay.” .”