Image 01 Image 03

Border Crisis: Fifth Circuit Issues Temporary Stay for the Texas Rio Grande Buoys

Border Crisis: Fifth Circuit Issues Temporary Stay for the Texas Rio Grande Buoys

The buoys can stay until the 5th Circuit hears the Texas appeal of the district court’s order.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit temporarily halted an order to force Texas to remove the Rio Grande buoys.

The order to remove the buoys came from Judge David Alan Ezra of the U.S. District Court Western District of Texas – Austin Division on Wednesday.

Ezra’s ruling was only a preliminary injunction, not a final ruling.

The state of Texas immediately filed an appeal:

The equities overwhelmingly favor a stay: Texas’s sovereignty and self-defense interests are irreparably harmed even if Texas prevails on appeal. This case also presents serious legal questions with “a broad impact on relations between the states and the federal government.” Weingarten Realty Invs. v. Miller, 661 F.3d 904, 910 n.9 (5th Cir. 2011). Moreover, the district court erred on the merits.

The Fifth Circuit responded on Friday:

IT IS ORDERED that Appellants’ motion for administrative stay of the order of the Western District of Texas, Austin Division dated September 6, 2023, is GRANTED pending further order of the Court.

The buoys can stay until the Fifth Circuit hears the appeal of the district court ruling.

Texas officials installed the buoys with anchors by Eagle Pass, where border agents have encountered about 270,000 migrants in this fiscal year.

That number is lower than the encounters last year.

The DOJ accused Texas of violating the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899:

The United States alleges that Texas violated Section 10 of the RHA, 33 U.S.C § 403, by (1) erecting a structure in the Rio Grande River without authorization from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”), and (2) creating an obstruction to the navigable capacity of that waterway without affirmative Congressional authorization. (Id. ¶ 2.)

The International Boundary and Water Commission claimed Texas placed some of the buoys in Mexican waters.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The federal government is very blatantly working to violate Texas’ sovereignty, very blatantly working for the complete abandonment of our nation’s borders.


    Capitalist-Dad in reply to ChrisPeters. | September 9, 2023 at 9:44 am

    You are right. The central tyranny (no longer a federal government) thinks the states are vassals, where true federalism says they are equal partners in governing. This case is more critical to constitutionalism than merely the DC masterminds’ specious use of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act. The broader issue is whether states are obligated to accept the central tyranny purposefully abdicating its constitutional duty to faithfully enforce immigration law, or whether states can step in to defend their citizens in the face of DC dereliction, incompetence, and perfidy. It’s time for a Texas Resolution to add to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. If the central government won’t close our border as it should, states can step in to do it, and no agency of the central government—including courts—can prevent states from defending their citizens’ lives, liberty, and property, and, in addition, vindicating proper constitutional government.

the Proud Buoys live !!

I’m looking at this photo and asking myself, are these the devilish devices designed to keep interlopers out? Because I believe my 12yo grandson could jump these babies without a running start.

    CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | September 9, 2023 at 8:18 am

    They aren’t meant to be 100% effective. The purpose is to create enough of a pain in the ass in making the attempt to discourage crossing at these areas. The goal being to funnel the illegal aliens to the established CPB checkpoints at the ports of entry. The secondary goal is to create a delay in the crossing to allow TX NG and LEO to intercept and either direct the illegal aliens towards the ports of entry or if already over arrest them.

    IDK about jumping these things, they are large and they spin so not much purchase to climb them especially in the water. Even knee/thigh depth water would seriously impede any jumping attempt. Plus while they are anchored they also free float to a degree so they ain’t static.

    Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | September 11, 2023 at 3:03 am

    They’re slippery, they rotate, and there’s a net hanging from them to prevent diving under them. They’re also tethered to concrete blocks on the bottom.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to disprove the hypothesis that the Federal government is waging unconventional warfare against the Red States.

After the BRICS consortium agreed to reduce oil production, the federal government responded this week by withdrawing licenses for drilling in ANWR. The Federal government continues its efforts to increase censorship of conservative ideas on social media. The government has opened the “flood gates” to illegal aliens, which puts extreme pressure on Red State budgets and drives down wages. The federal government has indicted the presidential candidate with the most popular support among Red States.

If this not unconventional warfare, it is hard to see what the motivation would be for these actions, which are clearly harmful for the Red States and to the political process in general.

Stock the river with piranha.

Lucifer Morningstar | September 9, 2023 at 9:47 am

Oh, what a surprise. The court has issued a temporary stay and the buoy barriers can remain where they are.

Now the Biden regime will change tack and try another way to get them removed. I predict they’ll find some “endangered species” in the area that the EPA declare a “protected species” which of course will necessitate the removal of the barrier to “protect their habitat”.

Oh wait, the Biden regime in collusion with the EPA already has that in the works.

Somewhat surprised but happy with the stay. I agree the district judge was wrong to issue a preliminary injunction, because Texas is the one who can be irreparably harmed, and the migrants should have lower priority, especially those who have not broken into the country yet and therefore should have no standing at all.

“and (2) creating an obstruction to the navigable capacity of that waterway without affirmative Congressional authorization.”

Is a waterway that is only knee deep navigable? By what? Rowboat?

A river in which you could paddle a shallow-draft canoe to the Gulf of Mexico is more navigable than the ditches and swamps that the EPA claims the power to regulate.

    Milhouse in reply to markm. | September 11, 2023 at 3:01 am

    Yes, but this isn’t the EPA. For the purpose of this law, a waterway must be officially “actually navigable”. But the legal definition includes waterways that once were navigable, or that could one day be made navigable with some reasonable repairs. The Rio Grande is legally “actually navigable” until and unless Congress explicitly declares otherwise.

OTOH, a line of buoys following the stream rather than across it is not an obstacle to navigation.

    Milhouse in reply to markm. | September 11, 2023 at 2:59 am

    Texas argued that. The judge rejected the argument. Read the decision for his reasoning, which is not obviously wrong.