by The Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration Monday, allowing federal officials to cut or remove parts of a concertina wire barrier along the border with Mexico that Texas erected to prevent migrants from crossing into the state.
The 5-4 ruling was a victory for the administration in the increasingly bitter dispute between the White House and Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, an outspoken critic of President Biden’s border policy who has sent busloads of immigrants to northern cities.
Since 2021, Abbott, a third-term Republican, has mounted a multimillion-dollar campaign to impose strict measures at the border to deter migrants. These include installing barbed wire along the banks of the Rio Grande, installing a buoy barrier in the river and enacting a sweeping law that allows state and local authorities to arrest migrants who They cross from Mexico.
In overturning an appeals court ruling that had generally prohibited the administration from removing the cable while the court considers the case, the justices gave no reasons, which is typical when acting on emergency requests. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal members to form a majority.
An Abbott spokesman, Andrew Mahaleris, defended Texas’ practices and promised to continue pressing its case. “The absence of barbed wire and other deterrence strategies encourages migrants to make dangerous and illegal crossings between ports of entry,” he said in a statement, adding: “This case is ongoing and Governor Abbott will continue to fight to defend Texas property and ownership.” his constitutional authority to secure the border.”
White House spokesman Angelo Fernández Hernández accepted the decision and asked Congress to reach a bipartisan agreement on changes to the immigration system. “Texas’ political tricks, like putting up razor wire near the border, simply make it more difficult and dangerous for frontline staff to do their jobs,” he said in a statement. “Ultimately, we need adequate resources and policy changes to address our broken immigration system.”
Last month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit limited the ability of federal Border Patrol agents to cut the cable. The panel prohibited officers from “damaging, destroying or otherwise interfering with the Texas C-wire fence” while the appeal is pending, but made an exception for medical emergencies likely to result in “serious bodily injury or death.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the administration in October, saying Border Patrol agents had illegally destroyed state property and thwarted the state’s efforts to stop migrants from crossing the border. According to the lawsuit, border agents cut the cable at least 20 times “to admit aliens illegally entering Texas.”
Migrants have been injured by the cable and drownings in the swift currents of the Rio Grande have become more common. In court documentsPaxton argued that federal officials using bolt cutters and forklifts had destroyed parts of the barrier for no reason other than to allow migrants to enter.
In the Biden administration emergency application, Attorney General Elizabeth B. Prelogar rejected the argument that federal officials had done anything inappropriate. “Border Patrol agents’ exercise of discretion regarding the means to permit the detention, inspection, and processing of noncitizens in no way suggests that they cut wires for impermissible purposes,” she wrote.
Prelogar called the appeals court order “manifestly incorrect” and said the barrier interfered with the responsibilities of Border Patrol agents.
“The court order prohibits agents from crossing or moving physical obstacles erected by the State that prevent access to the very border they are charged with patrolling and to the people they are required to detain and inspect,” he wrote. “And it eliminates a key form of officer discretion to prevent deadly situations from developing, including mitigating the serious risks of drowning and death from hypothermia or heat exposure.”
The exception for medical emergencies was insufficient, Prelogar wrote. “It can take 10 to 30 minutes to cut through the dense layers of Texas barbed wire,” she wrote. “When a medical emergency is evident, it may be too late to provide life-saving help.”
The court order was also unjustified, Prelogar wrote. “Balanced against the deterioration of federal law enforcement and the risk to human life,” he wrote, “the appeals court cited as damages to Texas only the price of the cable and the cost of closing a loophole created by the agents.” of the Border Patrol.”
Paxton asked the judges to strike a different balance.
“It is in the public interest to deter illegal agency actions and respect property rights,” he wrote. “It is also in the public interest to reduce the flow of deadly fentanyl; combat human trafficking; protect Texans from illegal intrusions and violent attacks by criminal cartels; and minimize the risks to people, both U.S. citizens and migrants, of drowning while making dangerous journeys to and through illegal entry points.”
This month, federal officials said that when Border Patrol agents tried to respond to reports of a drowning in an area where the state had placed barriers, they were “physically prohibited” by state officials. Texas officials disputed that account.
J. David Goodman contributed reports.
