Biden Administration challenges Texas’ sovereignty, not vice versa

Don’t believe everything‍ you hear ⁢from the Democrat accomplice media about‍ Texas’ border security efforts. ⁣It’s ​time to set the record straight and separate​ fact ⁤from fiction.

First things first: Texas is not defying the Supreme‌ Court. Last week, the court overturned a lower court’s injunction that ​prevented⁣ the federal government from removing⁢ razor-wire fencing installed by ‍Texas on the border. Unfortunately, the media coverage of this decision and Texas’ response was filled with errors.

For example, Vox’s headline inaccurately stated, “The Supreme Court Says No, Texas Can’t Use Razor Wire to Restrain Federal Agents.” And immediately after the court’s order and Texas’‌ commitment ‍to continue using razor‍ wire, the⁣ media started spreading the​ false narrative that​ Texas was disregarding⁤ the ‌Supreme Court’s decision.

But both of these⁤ claims are incorrect. The Supreme Court did‌ not say that Texas couldn’t install ⁣razor⁣ wire, and ⁢Texas did not defy the court’s⁤ decision‍ because the court didn’t give any specific orders to Texas.

What the Supreme Court’s order⁣ did‍ was lift the injunction that a‌ lower ⁢court had placed on the Biden⁤ administration, allowing ‍the federal government to remove Texas’ fencing while still allowing Texas to keep installing it.

Supremacy Clause ⁤Doesn’t Override State⁢ Sovereignty

The media has also been misrepresenting the significance ⁣of ⁣the ⁤supremacy clause. ‍Members ⁤of the press, politicians, and academics are ‌portraying the supremacy clause⁤ as giving the Biden administration an automatic advantage ⁣in any dispute with Texas. ⁣But that’s not what ⁤the clause actually does.

The ​supremacy clause, found in Article VI of the U.S.⁣ Constitution, states‍ that the ⁤Constitution and federal laws‌ are “the ​supreme law of the land.” This means that federal law takes ​precedence over state law, but it’s ⁤a complex⁤ issue⁣ to determine which state⁤ laws ⁢are affected and ​when. Simply invoking the supremacy clause doesn’t provide‍ a clear answer about‍ the legitimacy of Texas’ border security efforts.

Furthermore,​ those who claim that every action ⁣taken by⁣ Texas is​ an attack on our constitutional‌ system are ignoring the fact that our⁣ Constitution recognizes both ⁤the sovereignty of the federal government and the⁤ state governments, with each having ⁢to ⁢respect ​the ⁢other’s authority, ​even if it’s a complicated balance.

Sovereignty, ⁤Supremacy, and the Standoff

The coverage of the standoff in Eagle ​Pass perfectly illustrates the inaccurate reporting⁤ surrounding the ⁢supremacy clause and the disregard for Texas’ sovereignty.

Eagle Pass, a border town in ⁣Texas,‌ became the center of attention when Governor Greg ‌Abbott declared a ‍state of​ emergency and took control of Shelby Park. Under the governor’s directive, the Texas National Guard restricted access to the ‌park, including for federal Border Patrol agents.

In response,​ the Department of ‍Homeland ‍Security ‍(DHS), which had‌ been using Shelby ⁤Park as a staging area for illegal aliens,⁤ sent⁢ two letters to Texas demanding unrestricted ⁤access to the park.⁤ These letters, along with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s responses, expose ‌the flaws‌ in many of the ⁤legal ‌arguments made​ by critics to condemn Abbott’s actions.

In ⁤its first letter to Texas, dated January 14, 2024, DHS demanded that‌ “Texas cease and desist its efforts to ​block Border Patrol’s⁤ access​ in‌ and around the Shelby Park⁣ area and ‍remove ⁣all barriers​ to access in the Shelby Park​ area.” ⁢DHS justified this‌ demand by claiming that “the State of Texas [has] impeded operations ‌of the Border Patrol” and ‌that Texas’ actions “conflict with‍ the authority and duties⁣ of Border ​Patrol under‌ federal law and ​are preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.”

DHS⁢ also added, “Texas’s ⁣actions also ‌improperly seek to regulate the federal government,” and argued that the ⁤entire area where Border ⁣Patrol was denied access is within 25 ⁣miles of the ‌international border, ​which grants Border Patrol⁢ an express statutory right of access‍ without a warrant.

While Border Patrol does have authority and duties related to ⁢immigration enforcement, Texas’ decision to block access likely did interfere with‍ DHS’s operations. However, the supremacy clause does not ‌give DHS the ⁢power to simply ‌take over private or another sovereign’s property by demanding it. (Emergency situations present ⁣different considerations, ⁢but Texas maintains that ⁣Border Patrol⁤ can access ⁤any part of the park in an emergency.)

DHS ​knows this, which is why their initial letter to Texas referenced‌ two‍ different theories to justify Border Patrol’s access to the park. First, they‍ claimed that a Memorandum of ⁤Agreement between DHS and Eagle Pass in December 2015 granted DHS continuous⁢ and uninterrupted⁣ access to all gate locations.

Whether that Memorandum of Agreement actually gave DHS a property ⁤right in Eagle Pass is unclear.‍ Texas argues that ⁤under the state⁣ Constitution,​ Eagle Pass couldn’t grant Border Patrol a ⁣property right without the state’s approval. A court might have ⁤to decide whether the Memorandum of ⁤Agreement grants ‌DHS unrestricted access to ‍Eagle Park, but that⁣ dispute has‌ nothing to do‍ with ⁢the supremacy⁢ clause.

Secondly, DHS claimed that Border⁤ Patrol has an express statutory right of access because⁤ the Shelby Park area is within 25 miles of the international border. However, as ⁣Paxton emphasized in his ​response letter to DHS, the federal statute ⁣that authorizes “U.S. Border Patrol warrantless access to land within 25 miles of the border”‍ specifically states that such access is “for the purpose​ of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of ⁢aliens into the United​ States.”

On the contrary, DHS is trying to facilitate ​illegal entry and use the‍ property ‌to ‌process migrants. Therefore, that ​statute does not grant DHS​ the access it demands.

In response to Paxton’s ⁤letter rejecting DHS’s demands, DHS sent a second missive. This time, the federal agency ⁤made⁣ no mention of the supremacy clause or‌ a statutory right to ‍access the property, which tacitly ⁤admits that their initial arguments were baseless. Instead,⁢ DHS claimed that⁤ the federal government actually ‌owned ‌the‌ property in and around ​Eagle Pass, having obtained title through condemnation.

To ⁢support this assertion, DHS referred to a final ‍judgment from 2016 that showed the ‍George W. Bush administration acquiring ownership of various plots of ‍land‌ in and around Eagle ‌Pass. If the federal government does indeed own the ⁤disputed property,‍ Texas stated that it ⁤would remove any obstructions to federal land.

However, ‌Texas expressed ⁢serious doubts about the federal government’s claims of ‍property rights. Paxton pointed out that DHS’s own map “shows most of ‌the tracts you reference fall outside the perimeter area secured by Texas at​ Shelby Park.” ⁤Furthermore, publicly available records suggest that the United States does not even claim ownership of the ⁣parcels mentioned in the latest letter. ⁤Paxton concluded his response⁣ by⁤ requesting DHS to provide⁢ official plat maps and deeds identifying the property owned by the United States, as well as‌ an explanation of how Texas is preventing‌ federal agents​ from accessing those parcels.

DHS⁢ has yet to⁢ respond, but this⁤ exchange confirms that it is ‍the Biden administration encroaching on Texas’ sovereignty, not the ⁤other way around.

If the Biden administration truly owns the disputed property, it could have proven it long ago instead‍ of relying on the supremacy clause. The Constitution allows for condemnation proceedings, and Congress has⁢ granted the U.S. government the authority to‍ acquire⁣ ownership‌ over real property when necessary to⁣ control and protect U.S. borders, ⁢with the property owner receiving fair compensation. In fact, the federal government gains rights to​ the property upon filing the condemnation ⁣petition, ensuring prompt access.

Texas may not be pleased‌ with⁤ the Biden administration taking ownership of Shelby ⁤Park through condemnation, but that’s⁤ where the ⁤supremacy clause comes into play. ​Federal law is the highest law of⁣ the land,​ and Texas’ sovereignty now takes a backseat.

The fact that the Biden administration hasn’t ‌utilized the power‌ to condemn Shelby Park suggests that the president knows most Americans wouldn’t approve ​of the ⁣federal government seizing a park to create ‌a camp for those illegally entering our country.

DHS can⁢ avoid this⁢ spectacle if it can prove that a previous administration already obtained ​title to⁤ the ‌disputed property.⁣ But even if that’s the case, the Biden administration’s ‍battle with Texas over border security is ⁣far from​ over.