Supreme Court Rules Against Texas on Border, Allows Feds to Cut Barbed Wire

[Sirius_]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-border-patrol-agents-remove-razor-wire-installed-rcna132890

A closely-divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed Border Patrol agents to cut through or move razor wire Texas installed on the U.S.-Mexico border as part of an effort by the state to prevent illegal border crossings.

The court on a 5-4 vote granted an emergency request filed by the Biden administration, which had argued that Texas was preventing agents from carrying out their duties.

Roberts and Barrett joined the liberals on this ruling.

[brucejoel99]

Hmm, where've we heard this one before, Texas? 🤔

The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.

[OSR stands with Israel]

They should rule Sanctuary Cities are unconstitutional then too

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

They should rule Sanctuary Cities are unconstitutional then too

Under what part of the constitution?

[brucejoel99]

They should rule Sanctuary Cities are unconstitutional then too

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1749553297856360545

[OSR stands with Israel]

They should rule Sanctuary Cities are unconstitutional then too

Under what part of the constitution?

its undermining Federal Immigration law and SCOTUS just ruled that states dont have power over immigration laws

[GeorgiaModerate]

They should rule Sanctuary Cities are unconstitutional then too

Under what part of the constitution?

its undermining Federal Immigration law and SCOTUS just ruled that states dont have power over immigration laws

Read Steve Vladeck's tweet that brucejoel99 quoted in the post before yours.  

[Sumner 1868]

They should rule Sanctuary Cities are unconstitutional then too

Under what part of the constitution?

its undermining Federal Immigration law and SCOTUS just ruled that states dont have power over immigration laws

That would mean Proposition 187 was an inappropriate assault on federal immigration law and Pete Wilson should have known better. I doubt you believe that.

[NYDem]

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like a fairly clear case of the federal government having supremacy over the states. It involves an area where the Constitution explicitly gives the federal government authority-- immigration and security.

I'm not a fan of illegal immigration and I think something needs to be done about the current situation, but I fail to see how Governor Abbott play acting as President of a sovereign state is helpful or legal.

[SteveRogers]

They should rule Sanctuary Cities are unconstitutional then too

Under what part of the constitution?

its undermining Federal Immigration law and SCOTUS just ruled that states dont have power over immigration laws

Can you explain what you think “Sanctuary Cities” are?

[Yoda]

No reason this shouldn't have been 9-0. Immigration policy/enforcement is federal jurisdiction. Period.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1749565189563818403

[NYDem]

Also the response to this ruling by some Republicans has been little short of deranged. Clay Higgins may be one of our nation's stupidest congressmen, but it's still unsettling to see a sitting official calling for civil war with quotes like: “My thoughts are that the feds are staging a civil war, and Texas should stand their ground.”

This is a fight that was settled in 1789, and then again in 1865. States are not sovereign nations, but inferior parts of a larger federal government. States do have substantial powers reserved to themselves, but boundaries, immigration, and foreign affairs are all the purview of the federal government. I don't know why people who should know better are acting surprised that Texas isn't allowed to usurp federal authority on these matters.

[Agafin]

It's funny how democrats early on accused the current court of being extremely politicised/biased/whatever but in the end, this court has certainly been impartial and that is almost entirely thanks to the Trump appointees + Robert. Indeed, KBJ, Sotomayor, Alito and Thomas pretty much always rule the way you'd expect them to, based on who appointed them. On the other hand, Robert, ACB, Kavanaugh and even Gorsuch (on LGBT and native american issues for example) have a much less predictably biased record. Kagan at least tries to be less partisan but still falls way short of those 4.

That's probably why the "pack the courts" movement is dead. No one who isn't a hack seriously thinks the court is partisan. Corruption though is a more credible issue (looking at you, Thomas).

[Landslide Lyndon]

No reason this shouldn't have been 9-0. Immigration policy/enforcement is federal jurisdiction. Period.

It's scary that four justices sided with the nutjobs from Texas.

[brucejoel99]

It's funny how democrats early on accused the current court of being extremely politicised/biased/whatever but in the end, this court has certainly been impartial and that is almost entirely thanks to the Trump appointees + Robert. Indeed, KBJ, Sotomayor, Alito and Thomas pretty much always rule the way you'd expect them to, based on who appointed them. On the other hand, Robert, ACB, Kavanaugh and even Gorsuch (on LGBT and native american issues for example) have a much less predictably biased record. Kagan at least tries to be less partisan but still falls way short of those 4.

That's probably why the "pack the courts" movement is dead. No one who isn't a hack seriously thinks the court is partisan. Corruption though is a more credible issue (looking at you, Thomas).

https://twitter.com/josephpatrice/status/1749602985204666621

[Agafin]

It's funny how democrats early on accused the current court of being extremely politicised/biased/whatever but in the end, this court has certainly been impartial and that is almost entirely thanks to the Trump appointees + Robert. Indeed, KBJ, Sotomayor, Alito and Thomas pretty much always rule the way you'd expect them to, based on who appointed them. On the other hand, Robert, ACB, Kavanaugh and even Gorsuch (on LGBT and native american issues for example) have a much less predictably biased record. Kagan at least tries to be less partisan but still falls way short of those 4.

That's probably why the "pack the courts" movement is dead. No one who isn't a hack seriously thinks the court is partisan. Corruption though is a more credible issue (looking at you, Thomas).

https://twitter.com/josephpatrice/status/1749602985204666621

As pointed out already in the thread, the existence of "sanctuary cities" shows how much worth the supremacy clause really is.
And my wider point is not just about this case anyway. The gerrymandering ruling was clearly favorable to democrats in almost every way imaginable and is (along with Dobbs), the most electorally impactful decision of this court so far.

[Landslide Lyndon]

As pointed out already in the thread, the existence of "sanctuary cities" shows how much worth the supremacy clause really is.

This thread proved the exact opposite, if you read ALL the messages and not only those of the blue avatars.

[7,052,770]

It's funny how democrats early on accused the current court of being extremely politicised/biased/whatever but in the end, this court has certainly been impartial and that is almost entirely thanks to the Trump appointees + Robert. Indeed, KBJ, Sotomayor, Alito and Thomas pretty much always rule the way you'd expect them to, based on who appointed them. On the other hand, Robert, ACB, Kavanaugh and even Gorsuch (on LGBT and native american issues for example) have a much less predictably biased record. Kagan at least tries to be less partisan but still falls way short of those 4.

That's probably why the "pack the courts" movement is dead. No one who isn't a hack seriously thinks the court is partisan. Corruption though is a more credible issue (looking at you, Thomas).

The "pack the Court" movement came up after Republicans insisted that Obama couldn't fill a vacancy in February 2016 no matter what, even inventing a fake precedent out of nowhere to justify it, but then just 5 years later allowing Trump to fill a vacancy in September 2020.

No one is merely saying "The Supreme Court has too many conservatives, so let's add liberals!" Only Republicans play hardball like that (see state courts in Georgia and West Virginia), for better or worse. All we are saying is that the Court should be R+1 rather than R+3, either based on the precedent that existed for centuries, or based on the new one that McConnell made up in 2016.

[Ferguson97]

Deeply disturbing that this wasn’t 9-0. Whatever your political views on immigration are, Texas was very clearly legally in the wrong.

[Gass3268]

Looks like Texas plans on directly confronting the Federal Government. Biden needs to go full Ike here.

https://twitter.com/camiloreports/status/1749850117518119117?s=46

[Ferguson97]

Looks like Texas plans on directly confronting the Federal Government. Biden needs to go full Ike here.

https://x.com/camiloreports/status/1749850117518119117

Charge Abbott with treason.

[Badger]

No reason this shouldn't have been 9-0. Immigration policy/enforcement is federal jurisdiction. Period.

This. The fact this somehow garnered a 5 to 4 split decision even on an emergency order is exhibited as to however loving out of its mind far right wing this court has become

[Mopsus]

Looks like Texas plans on directly confronting the Federal Government. Biden needs to go full Ike here.

https://twitter.com/camiloreports/status/1749850117518119117?s=46

I’m not sure you would like the implications of Biden going “full Ike” on immigration…

[MarkD]

Considering the precedents that go way back to over 100 years ago, this is hardly legally surprising.