In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court decided to temporarily side with the Biden administration on the issue of cutting concertina wire placed on the southern border by Texas. This wire was meant to prevent migrants from entering the state illegally. However, former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy argues that the law is actually on Texas’ side. McCarthy explains that the Supreme Court did not order Texas to do anything and that no court has prevented Texas from erecting more barriers.
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 agrees with McCarthy’s perspective and intends to continue installing more razor wire, regardless of federal attempts to cut it. Abbott argues that as a state, Texas has the right to stop criminals from entering and to make arrests of those who do. He claims that the federal government is not fulfilling its duty to enforce laws that deny illegal entry into the United States. Abbott cites Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which states that the federal government should protect the states against invasion.
Abbott explains that the states created the federal government and established their relationship in the Constitution. He believes that Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution grants states the right of self-defense in situations where the federal government fails to protect them. Abbott accuses President Biden of violating the law and argues that Texas is asserting its right of self-defense.
McCarthy agrees with Abbott, stating that Biden’s actions are in gross violation of the law. He cites U.S. Code Title 8, which requires that migrants claiming credible fear of persecution be kept in custody while their claims are reviewed. McCarthy argues that Biden’s parole authority for migrants does not exist and accuses him of grossly abusing the parole exception.
While Abbott and McCarthy believe that Biden is not fulfilling his constitutional duty to protect the states, law professor Jonathan Turley suggests that the federal courts may side with the president. He believes that the courts are unlikely to view the situation at the southern border as an “invasion” or “imminent danger” as defined in the Constitution.
Overall, the debate surrounding the Supreme Court’s ruling and Texas’ right to protect its borders continues to raise questions about federal and state authority and the interpretation of constitutional law.