Silent Sunday Feb 11 2024

There is a lot of confusion about what is or is not happening in Texas, particularly as it relates to the Supreme Court decision on the razor wire case, and what the courts have ordered Texas to do.
I’ve been following the US vs Texas, Texas vs US border-specific court cases for months, starting with the US lawsuit against Abbott in an effort to remove saw-bladed buoys from the Rio Grande. I decided a quick primer on the cases—with links to the Free Law court document archives—would be helpful. Not just for others … I’m also having a hard time keeping track of which case is in front of the Fifth or for what order.
Needless to say, it’s a mess. And Texas is not the only entity participating in the growing Constitutional crises: the Fifth Circuit court has been a willing partner in the events.
This is the first case I started following. It’s also the one that interests me the most because of what it says about the Fifth Circuit, and I’ll have a more detailed post on this in the future.
(I have been documenting the case on Facebook, and have since started moving the posts over to Burningbird, under the tag Texas Immigration Lawsuits.)
The events started with Texas placing a 1000 foot string of saw-bladed, deadly buoys with concrete anchors and underwater anti-personnel netting underneath in the middle of the Rio Grande river. Abbott did not contact the Army Corps of Engineers about placing the buoys in violation of the Rivers and Harbors Act. In response, the US sued Texas to remove the barrier.
Timeline of event:
I’ll have more on the Fifth’s actions on this case in a future post.
District court docket at CourtListener
Fifth Circuit docket at CourtListener
It’s tediously difficult to read through a Texas state complaint. The documents are full of hyperbole and extraneous complaints. In this case, Texas sued the US because Border Patrol agents were cutting the concertina (razer wire) blocking access to migrants who had already crossed the US border.
The state didn’t ask for reimbursement of the wire. No, they wanted the courts to forbid the US Border Patrol from cutting the wire in order to access the migrants who either were in danger of being hurt or killed, or who had already crossed the US border.
The fundamental question presented is thus whether a single state, upon becoming dissatisfied with federal policies, may bring a state-law suit to control the manner in which federal officials carry out federal law.
There has been considerable confusion about what the SCOTUS decision means.
It is a limited decision based on a limited request by the US: to deny a preliminary injunction that would have prohibited the Border Patrol from cutting concertina wire in the performance of its duties. Based on the SCOTUS decision, the Border Patrol may cut the wire. However, Texas may still lay down the wire and it isn’t in violation of the Supreme Court decision. And the decision has nothing to do with the buoy case mentioned earlier.
SCOTUSBlog Supreme Court case docket
In 2023, the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 4 (SB4). The US sued Texas soon thereafter. In its complaint, the US stated:
The United States brings this action to preserve its exclusive authority under federal law to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens. Texas’s Senate Bill 4 (SB 4) creates purported state immigration crimes for unlawful entry and unlawful reentry, permits
state judges and magistrates to order the removal of noncitizens from the country, and mandates that state officials carry out those removal orders. But Texas cannot run its own immigration system. Its efforts, through SB 4, intrude on the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens, frustrate the United States’ immigration operations and proceedings, and interfere with U.S. foreign relations. SB 4 is invalid and must be enjoined
SB4 has been compared to Arizona’s SB1070, passed in 2010, and which was partially struck down in the Supreme Court in 2012. There are a lot of similarities between the two bills, but there’s one major difference: SB4 actually allows state authorities to deport migrants they deem illegal. Not even Arizona went this far in their law. SB4 is blatantly, and I mean blatantly, unconstitutional.
I have some concerns about the case being moved to Judge Ezra, and not because he’s not a good judge. It’s because of the overt hostility displayed against him by members of the Fifth. The actions of the Fifth are as much, or more, responsible for the mess this situation is, as Texas.
The court case docket at Court Listener
Today is a good day to read.
I subscribe to a good number of newsletters. Most are freely available, even if you don’t subscribe to the parent publication
One such newsletter is Landline, from High Country News. I subscribe to the Landline because it has excellent coverage of what’s happening with clean air and water, the Endangered Species Act, the Interior, and climate change.
From the Landline: Is Biden waging a war on energy? Or on the climate?
Biden is twixt and tween on climate change and we’re going to end up with a really bad President if we don’t recognize this. Yes, we wish he could have done more for the environment and fighting climate change. Given. However, if you keep up with court cases, you realize he has done what he could given the current state of our court systems—not to mention the current state of Congress.
***
Another newsletter is from The 74, a media site dedicated to all things educational. You don’t have to be a teacher—or a parent—to have an interest in education. After all, what happens in schools impacts on what type of citizens kids become in the future. And even us older childfree couples have to live with these citizens.
From The 74, a story about one of the largest school districts in the country in Virginia, and the impact of its mistaken release of private and confidential data from 35,000 students.
From The 74: Alleged Rape Victim Presses Virginia’s Fairfax Schools for Answers on Records Disclosure
***
The Climate Coach is one of Washington Post’s free newsletters. You don’t have to be a subscriber to the Post to get the newsletter. Today’s Climate Coach is about our need to stop buying so much crap…and to consider getting rid of the crap we have.
Article has had the paywall removed.
From the Climate Coach: The Swedes know the secret to happiness: You are not your stuff
***
Speaking of newsletters, I suspect most of us are signed up for one or more newletters from authors who publish on Substack. I subscribe to several, though I can’t afford to be a paying client of all of them.
You might have heard recently about a neo-Nazi account on Substack, and the company’s response when asked about it. Linked below are some of the replies from people I follow on Substack.
As for me? If someone moves from Substack, I’ll do my best to find and follow them. But I won’t unsubscribe from someone who wants to stay on Substack. I’ve had an online site long enough to know that no matter where you go, bad people follow. I lease my server space from Linode, which is now a part of Akamai. I would not be surprised if Akamai is hosting a neo-Nazi web site. Or two. And if I find this out, I’m not going to pull my server and go elsewhere, because wherever I go, the bad people will follow. If not immediately, someday.
If you want to silence bad people, you drown them out with the good. So, don’t link to the bad people, don’t talk to the bad people, and don’t give the bad people attention. Only echo the good.
So, I’m linking to the good.
Kevin Kruse: Moving Forward
Ken White: Substack Has A Nazi Opportunity
Thomas Zimmer: On Substack’s Nazi Problem, and Ours