This has huge ramifications and clearly now sets up a hearing by the supreme court.
But in a split decision, with a majority of 9 outvoting 7, in a Federal Appeals Court, the earlier District Ruling was overturned which said Texas could NOT protect its border. As of today, apparently Texas can now protect its own border. Expect an appeal.
justthenews.com
This link has the full story ^^^
The quoted portion below is only the first part of the story:
But in a split decision, with a majority of 9 outvoting 7, in a Federal Appeals Court, the earlier District Ruling was overturned which said Texas could NOT protect its border. As of today, apparently Texas can now protect its own border. Expect an appeal.
Federal appeals court hands Texas major border win, ruling state can use buoys on Rio Grande River
Appeals judges voted 9-7 to reverse a district court’s preliminary injunction that had kept state from using buoys to stop illegal immigration.
justthenews.com
The quoted portion below is only the first part of the story:
Federal appeals court hands Texas major border win, ruling state can use buoys on Rio Grande River
Appeals judges voted 9-7 to reverse a district court’s preliminary injunction that had kept state from using buoys to stop illegal immigration. One year after Texas installed marine barriers in the Rio Grande River near Eagle Pass, Texas, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Texas has the legal right to do so.
It also reversed a district court’s preliminary injunction and remanded the case back to the court “with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
The court ruled in favor of Texas in a 9-7 vote.
Circuit Judge Don Willett wrote the majority opinion.
Willett made similar arguments as Gov. Greg Abbott had, saying, “the district court clearly erred in finding that the United States will likely prove that the barrier is in a navigable stretch of the Rio Grande. We cannot square the district court's findings and conclusions with over centuries worth of precedent, which on a fair and faithful reading renders inapplicable or unpersuasive the evidence on which the district court relies.”
Abbott lauded the ruling, saying, “The Federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just ruled that Texas can KEEP these buoys in the water securing our border. Biden tried to remove them. I fought to keep them in the water. That is exactly where they will stay. JUSTICE!!!!”
Circuit Judge James Ho partially concurred and partially dissented, agreeing that the preliminary injunction “must be reversed. But I get to that place through a different path,” he said, adding that he would have instructed the district court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
He argued Texas’ right to install the buoys was a constitutional one: a sovereign state has the right to protect its own border. He made similar arguments to those of 55 Texas judges who declared Texas was being invaded.
“A sovereign isn’t a sovereign if it can’t defend itself against invasion,” Ho wrote. “Presidents throughout history have vigorously defended their right to protect the Nation. And the States did not forfeit this sovereign prerogative when they joined the Union. Indeed, the Constitution is even more explicit when it comes to the States. Presidents routinely insist that their power to repel invasion is implied by certain clauses. But Article I, section 10 is explicit that States have the right to ‘engage in War’ if ‘actually invaded,’ ‘without the Consent of Congress.’”
Seven dissenting judges argued the federal government was likely to succeed on the merits of its case, disagreeing with the majority who said it wasn’t. . . .
