excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 20,313
- 39,229
- 2,290
Good!
States have the right to keep these illegals out of their states.
This was an en banc rehearing, so next stop will be the one Supreme Court.
A federal appeals court delivered a win Tuesday to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, ruling in favor of the floating border wall that he ordered erected in the Rio Grande to try to shut down a hotspot for illegal immigration.
But the judges did not rule on whether Mr. Abbott was right to invoke “invasion” powers under the Constitution, putting that question off for another day.
Instead the case turned on whether the 1,000-foot barrier near Eagle Pass violates a 19th-century law giving the feds primacy over what happens in navigable rivers — and whether the Rio Grande is such a river.
The full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in an 11-7 ruling, said that based on the case right now, the law doesn’t apply to that stretch of the Rio Grande.
The barrier is one of a series of moves Mr. Abbott made to try to plug what he called gaps in the country’s border defenses opened up by President Biden’s more relaxed approach to illegal immigration.
The Republican governor had a chain of orange buoys anchored to the riverbed and placed along a popular crossing point for migrants. He said his goal was to force them to go to legal border crossings to apply for entry.
By most accounts the barrier has been successful in slowing crossings, but the Biden administration argued it was also dangerous, raising the risk that migrants would drown in the river.
...
Judge Don Willett, writing the key opinion, delved into history and found scant evidence that the shallow, usually wadable river counts as “navigable” for purposes of the venerable law.
“At bottom, the United States’s argument for historical navigability teeters on only inconsistent and exceptional accounts of past use along this stretch of the Rio Grande. The United States therefore has not carried its burden to show that it is likely to succeed in proving under the RHA that the barrier sits in a portion of the river that was historically navigable in its natural condition,” the judge wrote.
The ruling produced a flurry of opinions, including one from Judge James C. Ho, who sided with the majority but said the court never should have just tossed Mr. Biden’s case altogether because Texas is facing a border invasion.
Judge Ho said Mr. Abbott declared an invasion under the Constitution and said there’s “ample” evidence that the declaration was made in good faith. That, the judge said, elevates the fight beyond the reach of the courts.
“Texas’s invocation of Article I, section 10 presents a nonjusticiable political question. Accordingly, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the federal government’s claim under the RHA,” Judge Ho wrote.
...
www.washingtontimes.com
States have the right to keep these illegals out of their states.
This was an en banc rehearing, so next stop will be the one Supreme Court.
A federal appeals court delivered a win Tuesday to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, ruling in favor of the floating border wall that he ordered erected in the Rio Grande to try to shut down a hotspot for illegal immigration.
But the judges did not rule on whether Mr. Abbott was right to invoke “invasion” powers under the Constitution, putting that question off for another day.
Instead the case turned on whether the 1,000-foot barrier near Eagle Pass violates a 19th-century law giving the feds primacy over what happens in navigable rivers — and whether the Rio Grande is such a river.
The full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in an 11-7 ruling, said that based on the case right now, the law doesn’t apply to that stretch of the Rio Grande.
The barrier is one of a series of moves Mr. Abbott made to try to plug what he called gaps in the country’s border defenses opened up by President Biden’s more relaxed approach to illegal immigration.
The Republican governor had a chain of orange buoys anchored to the riverbed and placed along a popular crossing point for migrants. He said his goal was to force them to go to legal border crossings to apply for entry.
By most accounts the barrier has been successful in slowing crossings, but the Biden administration argued it was also dangerous, raising the risk that migrants would drown in the river.
...
Judge Don Willett, writing the key opinion, delved into history and found scant evidence that the shallow, usually wadable river counts as “navigable” for purposes of the venerable law.
“At bottom, the United States’s argument for historical navigability teeters on only inconsistent and exceptional accounts of past use along this stretch of the Rio Grande. The United States therefore has not carried its burden to show that it is likely to succeed in proving under the RHA that the barrier sits in a portion of the river that was historically navigable in its natural condition,” the judge wrote.
The ruling produced a flurry of opinions, including one from Judge James C. Ho, who sided with the majority but said the court never should have just tossed Mr. Biden’s case altogether because Texas is facing a border invasion.
Judge Ho said Mr. Abbott declared an invasion under the Constitution and said there’s “ample” evidence that the declaration was made in good faith. That, the judge said, elevates the fight beyond the reach of the courts.
“Texas’s invocation of Article I, section 10 presents a nonjusticiable political question. Accordingly, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the federal government’s claim under the RHA,” Judge Ho wrote.
...
Appeals court rules in favor of Texas’ floating border wall, though judges duck ‘invasion’ argument
A federal appeals court delivered a win Tuesday to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, ruling in favor of the floating border wall that he ordered erected in the Rio Grande to try to shut down a hotspot for illegal immigration.
www.washingtontimes.com
