Federal courts have taken steps to address Governor Abbott’s actions. The Supreme Court has ruled in agreement with the Biden administration, allowing Border Patrol Agents to cut Abbott’s wiring. Meanwhile, the administration is using lower federal courts to challenge Abbott’s installation of floating barriers in the Rio Grande. This method of appealing to federal courts relates to our lessons in class as the Supreme Court has set a precedent but it is up to the Department of Homeland Security to enforce this ruling.
Governor Abbott uses the invasion clause, the right of states to defend against an invasion given by the Constitution, to justify his action, however, Professor Stephen Vladick questions his argument: “There's no support in our history, there's no support in founding or other materials for the idea that states can decide for themselves that they're under invasion, and, even if the federal government disagrees, that somehow it's the state's determination that would control.” Others, however, agree with Abbott’s actions such as South Dakota’s Governor Kristi Noem who enthusiastically exclaimed she’ll “drive in more razor wire from South Dakota if [she has] to, for [Abbott] to do his job."
Governor Abbott’s work is not only a nuisance to the federal government but is causing harm as well. Due to his floating borders, a woman and her two children drowned in the Rio Grande. Environmental experts are concerned about flooding due to the buoys and Mexico claims they and the razor wire violate treaties made between Mexico and the US.
1 comment:
I think owing to the fact that there hasn't been a precedent case where a state extends their reach/power by claiming that they are being "invaded," it allows Texas to have more flexibility and it complicates matters for trying to determine on what grounds the Governor Abbott is acting legally. I am very curious to see how Governor Abbott plans on circumventing federal measures to try and continue to push his agenda in regards to border security.
Post a Comment