236
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

The Supreme Court is allowing US Border Patrol agents to remove razor wire deployed by Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott’s security initiative at the US-Mexico border while the state’s legal challenge to the practice plays out.

The vote was 5-4.

The justices’ order is a major victory for President Joe Biden in his ongoing dispute with Abbott over border policy, which had become especially fraught in recent days after three migrants drowned in a section of the Rio Grande that state officials have blocked agents’ access to, prompting the administration to further press for the high court’s intervention.

A federal appeals court last month ordered the Border Patrol agents to stop removing razor wire along a small stretch of the Rio Grande while court proceedings continue, and the Justice Department asked the justices earlier this month to step in on an emergency basis to wipe away that order, which they did on Monday.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said they would have denied the federal request.

all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 47 points 9 months ago

Wow, only four of the justices are complete morons. Who knew?

[-] Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Only 4 of the judges are partisan. Jury is still out on moron status.

[-] Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run 41 points 9 months ago

Why on Earth are the TX agents who put the razor wire up not required to remove it, and restore any environmental damage to a pristine condition?

[-] mdd@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

Unfortunately this is the case for TX and federal agents.

[-] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Technically, the national guard were mobilized to put it up. In general, laws are pretty lax about US Military installations.

[-] DefiantBidet@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

for those who wanna know who voted what

In Favor:

  • John Roberts
  • Amy Coney Barrett
  • Sonia Sotomayor
  • Elena Kagan
  • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Dissenting:

  • Clarence Thomas
  • Samuel Alito
  • Neil Gorsuch
  • Brett Kavanaugh

eta the reuters article spells it out : https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-lets-border-patrol-remove-texas-razor-wire-fencing-now-2024-01-22/

[-] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

I could have told you that without looking it up.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

So what was the excuse the dissenters gave? Free access by federal agents and emergency responders to a federal border on presumably federal land, seems pretty cut and dry.

[-] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I'm trying to figure that out myself

Edit: none of them explained their vote. Lol. I really can't understand any argument for the state having authority over the border over the federal government.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

And IIRC, the border control has jurisdiction over 100 miles from any border (water/land), which covers some ridiculously high portion of the US population, like 80%.

So yeah, 4/9 of our highest court's justices seem to have zero ground to stand on for their decision.

[-] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I don't agree with Abbotts position here. Border Patrol has the legal responsibility to patrol the national border - and unfortunately, they've extended that range to 200 miles inland, which is fucking bonkers.

I am sympathetic to Texans wanting to things done their way, as it's their state but it's a national border. If Texas wanted to patrol their border with Oklahoma, I would consider that their prerogative, just as I think it's Cali's prerogative to do so with Az.

Im sus of Paxton or Abbott actually wanting to solve any issues here tho. This feels like more grandstanding and politicking, throwing fodder to the media controversy machine. If Texans were set on securing the border to the manner they see fit, why don't they fall back, idk fifty fucking feet and defend that line?

Seems like that would allow BP to do what they need to do, and if there's just a "second wall" behind, that would allow Texas to do what it wants to do. Fucking Constantinople had 3 sets of walls that stood unpenetrable for 1000 years, its not like multiple walls is historically unheard of.

But, I'm not convinced Republicans want a solution towards immigration. I think they just want the theatrics so they can point at something when you ask why nothing's getting done (a placation I traditionally ascribe to democrats; for example DC renaming a street BLM Boulevard instead of addressing any of the raised issues)

[-] baronvonj@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

But, I'm not convinced Republicans want a solution towards immigration.

They don't. Neither the House GOP in general

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics/johnson-immigration-deal-house-senate/index.html

Or even just the ones from Texas

https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/house-republican-says-he-wont-accept-a-border-deal-because-it-may-help-biden-politically/articleshow/106552804.cms

They just want to rage bait to stay in office.

[-] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Trump weakened the border with his ICE policies.

Abbot deterred Asylum Seekers but likely forced dishonest peoples to just enter somewhere else.

The GOP don't give a fuck about keeping America safe, they just need to do enough song and dance to make it seem like we're being invaded by brown people, and then their supporters will hoot and holler hurrah.

[-] solidgrue@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Let's play a game: how did the Supreme Court screw us with this ruling?

I'll go first: no barricading cities off from the MAGA horde?

Who wants to go next?

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

The court usually throws out a couple minor "good news" rulings before deciding something particularly heinous.

[-] solidgrue@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Well, yeah. Chevron is looking pretty bleak so there's that PLUS now there's no barricades against the MAGA horde.

Our only hope might be a patriotic blood clot

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The justices’ order is a major victory for President Joe Biden in his ongoing dispute with Abbott over border policy, which had become especially fraught in recent days after three migrants drowned in a section of the Rio Grande that state officials have blocked agents’ access to, prompting the administration to further press for the high court’s intervention.

Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said that while the order is a victory for the Biden administration, the delay in issuing it raises future questions.

“The result of Texas’s position would be that States across the country could invoke their laws to impede the federal government’s exercise of its authority,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in court papers.

“If that injunction is left in place,” Prelogar stressed, “it will impede Border Patrol agents from carrying out their responsibilities to enforce the immigration laws and guard against the risk of injury and death, matters for which the federal government, not Texas, is held politically accountable.”

In subsequent filings to the high court, Prelogar said that new barriers recently erected by Texas – including new fencing, gates and military Humvees – “demonstrate an escalation” of the state’s efforts to hamstring the government’s border patrol duties and “reinforce” a need for swift intervention in the matter.

She also told the court that Texas was violating a critical part of the injunction that allows federal agents to cut wire to address medical emergencies, arguing that the drownings of two children and a woman earlier this month, as well as the rescue by Mexican officials of two other migrants on the US side of the Rio Grande, “underscore that Texas is firm in its continued efforts … to block Border Patrol’s access to the border even in emergency circumstances.”


The original article contains 762 words, the summary contains 303 words. Saved 60%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
236 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19170 readers
5442 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS