The ongoing dispute between the Biden administration and Texas regarding the southern border has escalated into a significant immigration conflict, marking one of the most substantial disagreements between the federal government and a state government in over a decade.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, recently authorized the seizure of city property along the southern border, resulting in the arrest of migrants for trespassing as they crossed illegally—an action vehemently opposed by the federal government. In response, the Biden administration has sought Supreme Court intervention, asserting that Texas is exceeding its authority. This legal confrontation marks the most significant immigration battle at the Supreme Court since 2012.
Professor Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, an immigration law expert at Cornell, emphasized the traditional understanding that states have a limited role in enforcing immigration laws. Texas is challenging this assumption, raising questions about how the courts will adjudicate this crucial issue. In 2012, the Supreme Court, in the case of Arizona v. United States, ruled against states enforcing immigration laws independently.
The current clash stems from Texas’ takeover of Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, where the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security accused Texas of hindering Border Patrol response to the drowning of a migrant mother and her two children. The Biden administration and Texas have also disagreed on issues such as the installation of razor wire along the border, the authority to arrest migrants for illegal entry, and Governor Abbott’s directive to place buoys in the Rio Grande.
Given the changes in the Supreme Court’s composition since the Arizona case, legal experts suggest that Governor Abbott’s case may have a chance, particularly with the presence of more conservative justices. The 2012 ruling, favoring the federal government 5-3, left certain questions unanswered regarding the state’s authority in matters related to the border.
Law Professor Josh Blackman noted that while the Arizona case was a victory for the federal government, it left room for interpretation on whether states could create offenses related to violations of federal law. With the current Supreme Court, which has seen changes in justices, there may be an opportunity for a different outcome, considering the evolving legal landscape and potential for a varied interpretation of established doctrine.
