Category: Legal, Laws, and Regs

Categories
Immigration Legal, Laws, and Regs Whatever

US vs Abbott US Response

Aerial view of river and buoys showing them past the Mexico/US border
Court document showing the buoy placement relative to the Mexico/US border

And in my current favorite legal case, US vs Abbott, the federal government has responded to the reply Texas filed against the demand for a preliminary injunction.

This damn case is such a no brainer. The majority of the buoys are in Mexican territory and must be removed. Mexico has asked the federal government to remove them. This has become a real point of contention between the countries, and causing real harm. End of story.
As for the ‘navigable’ crap, as the filing notes, though portions of the Rio Grande may not be navigable now, they can be made to be navigable. And that’s the true definition of ‘navigable’ according to the laws of our land, though we know that Thomas wants to undermine this understanding.

In addition, there’s all sorts of foreign treaties between us and Mexico related to the river.

Lastly, as the federal government notes, an ‘invasion’ is not individuals seeking to immigrant. An ‘invasion’ according to Congress and US laws is an organized armed attack. And the US government is tasked with protecting the US border, also end of story.

Unless this judge is the worst in the country, and I don’t have reason to believe he is, the damn buoys will finally be removed.

And guess what, kiddos: We’re going to have to pay for it.

Court Document

Categories
Immigration Legal, Laws, and Regs

US vs Abbott: Survey

Aerial view of river and buoys showing them past the Mexico/US border
Court document showing the buoy placement relative to the Mexico/US border

My concerns about the US vs Abbott case may have been unfounded.

The US and Mexico did a joint survey of the buoys placed by Abbott. They found that 787 feet of the buoys are actually in Mexico’s side of the Rio Grande. Yup, that’s right:

Abbott invaded Mexico.

Playing with definitions of ‘navigable’ or not, Abbott violated Mexico’s sovereign territory.

Unless the idiot wants to say that Mexico is now part of Texas, he’s going to have to move those damn things. And it’s time for the Judge to stop the Amicus nonsense and make the decision he should have made days ago.

Result of survey.

 

Categories
Immigration Legal, Laws, and Regs

US vs Abbott

Image of buoy system and line marking US and Mexico boundaries in Rio Grande River
Exhibit from court documents showing buoys and line marking US/Mexico boundaries

Taking a breather from indictments, I grow increasingly alarmed at what’s happening with a court case, US vs Abbott.

The federal government sued Abbott and Texas because his putting those barbaric buoys in the Rio Grande violated the Rivers and Harbors Act.

Slam dunk, you’d think.

But the amicus briefs filed and the response from Texas has been to challenge the very concept of the term ‘navigable’, and reflects Thomas opinion in the Sacketts vs EPA WOTUS case decided by SCOTUS not too long ago.

They are literally using this case to launch an attack on the very concept of federal oversight of rivers and bodies of water, such as the Rio Grande that extend beyond state lines. An attack that, if it goes to SCOTUS, will gut whatever clean water protections we have left in this country.

This is all flying under the radar. I sure wish there were some friendlier faces paying attention to this.

Court case docket at Free Law

Categories
Legal, Laws, and Regs

Fifth Circuit mifepristone decision

So the Fifth circuit has blocked some of Kacksmaryk decision, but not all.

Even it couldn’t stomach reversing an FDA decision from 23 years ago. But it sure jumped into interfering with the FDA’s recent decisions. And the legal document is just as much a legal mishmash of badly applied law as the original decision.

They have no shame, and evidently they have no pride, either. Frankly, I’m a better lawyer than these people…and I’m not a lawyer.

Interesting that only the two Trump-appointed judges voted for the decision. The Bush-appointed judge would have blocked all of Kacksmaryk’s decision.

The Trump taint in our courts…the only thing that can fix it is to water it down. We need to appoint more justices, and not just to SCOTUS.

Decision

Categories
Environment Legal, Laws, and Regs

Sackett v EPA: Today’s the day

From the report: wetland

Today’s the day when the second Sackett v EPA case is heard in the Supreme Court. The consequences of today’s imbalanced Supreme Court could be devastating to the quality of the waters in our country.

I’ll be writing about this case after the oral arguments. In the meantime, I’m putting together a page (Sackett v EPA Documents and articles) with links to documents I’ve collected over the years. All of the court documents aren’t fully linked, but the key set of material is the EPA Administrative Record. This set of documents contains the reports and photos that form the background for the EPA case.

The Sacketts contend that they needed no CWA permit because their land was separated from Priest Lake by a road, and therefore, there is no contiguous connection between the wetlands on their land and the lake. The EPA contends that a manmade structure, such as a berm, dike, or in this case, road, does not alter the fact that the wetland does, indeed, have a significant impact on the lake.

These arguments directly relate to the question that this hearing is supposed to address. But the Sackett lawyer, the infamous Pacific Legal Foundation, decided to blow the case up by challenging what constitutes a ‘tributary’ in the Clean Water Act—a challenge that could have disastrous impact on our waters in the country.

The courts should not address the latter challenge—it’s not included in the question related to the case—but as we discovered last year, this Supreme Court plays by a different set of rules now.

You can listen to the oral arguments at this link.