by He answer presented by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is almost ridiculous in its effort to bury the implications of the state’s position. “This narrow, fact-based dispute” does not merit the court’s attention, the attorney general wrote, noting that “the Fifth Circuit’s injunction involves a four-mile stretch of the 1,951-mile U.S.-Mexico border.” That’s like claiming that the case the Supreme Court will hear next week on whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy is unimportant because the dispute revolves around his eligibility for the Republican primaries in just one of the 50 states.
“The accused admit that they destroy property that does not belong to them,” the State complains in its brief. “Texas has a proprietary interest in its fences.” No doubt so, but the question is whether Texas had the right to place its barbed wire in a way that obstructed federal agents who have every right, and even duty, to be there. TO federal law dating back to 1952, it gives the federal government essentially free rein in an area that extends 25 miles inland from all of the country’s borders.
In any case, this case is no more about a fence than the potential landmark administrative law case that was argued in January about the fishing boat owners on whose behalf that case was brought. That case, along with another similar one, refers to what is known as the Chevron doctrine and it could change federal regulations on matters ranging from health care to the environment.
The point is that cases are always about issues, not about tangible objects or, with rare exceptions, about individuals. The judges know it. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said so much in recent remarks at the University of California, Berkeley, law school. “When you get to the Supreme Court, it’s no longer about your client,” she said. “This is not about your case. It is about how that legal question will affect the development of the law.”
So what is this case, Department of Homeland Security v. Texas, really about? It is the bold interpretation of the declaration of war. letter that Governor Abbott sent to President Biden more than a year ago, in November 2022. Addressing the president as something less than a head of state, the Texas governor accused him of “sustained dereliction of duty” by failing to properly enforce the federal immigration law. . As a result, Governor Abbott continued, Texas was forced to invoke the United States Constitution. Article I, Section 3, Clause 10which states that no State “shall take part in war, unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as to admit of no delay.”
