Texas Granted Temp Restraining Order Against Biden Admin Preventing Removal Of Razor Wire At Border
The temporary restraining order is in place “until the parties have an opportunity to present evidence at a preliminary injunction hearing before the Court.”
Judge Alia Moses of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ordered the Biden Administration to stop cutting the razor wire installed on the Texas border to deter illegal migrant crossings.
The temporary restraining order is in place “until the parties have an opportunity to present evidence at a preliminary injunction hearing before the Court.”
The order stops the Biden administration from (property refers to the razor wires):
- Removing the property from its present location for any reason other than to provide or obtain emergency medical aid
- Concealing the property in any way
- Offering the property for sale, rent, or use to any person, business, or entity
- Selling or otherwise transferring the property in whole or in part
- Encumbering the property in any way
- Scrapping the property
- Disposing of the property in any way
- Dissembling, degrading, tampering with, or transforming the property in any way for any reason other than to provide or obtain emergency medical
- Failing to take all steps necessary to protect the property against damage or loss of any kind
Moses granted the restraining order for three reasons.
The judge ruled that Texas would likely succeed in the Courts on the merits because the state owns the wires and established that the government damaged the wires. Plus, the government did not have permission “to interfere with the wires.”
Moses decided that Texas established irreparable harm without the restraining order (I eliminated the citations):
The Plaintiff preliminarily establishes that it would face irreparable harm without a temporary restraining order. The Plaintiff alleges that by “damaging, destroying, and exercising dominion over state property,” the Defendants are causing the Plaintiff to incur “extensive costs.” The Plaintiff also claims that the Defendants’ actions show that they intend to prevent the Plaintiff from “maintaining operational control of its own property.” Furthermore, the Plaintiff avers that destroying the concertina wire “irreparably harms Texas because it facilitates increased illegal entry into the State.” Consequently, the Plaintiff argues that it will continue to incur considerable additional expenses to expand social services, medical care, education, and other government programs, to accommodate the influx of illegal aliens. To support this assertion, the Plaintiff provides sworn declarations from various Texas state officials, who describe the significant annual cost of providing emergency medical services, social services, and public education to illegal aliens.
Moses also found that Texas satisfied the requirements for the temporary restraining order based on public interest “but just barely.” The judge agreed that stopping “unlawful activity, including illegal entry, is in the public interest.”
However, Moses said she recognized “a countervailing public interest…in allowing BP [border patrol] agents to address medical emergencies.”
Therefore, the restraining order “includes a narrow exception” to allow the government “to move or cut the concertina wires to aid individuals in medical distress.”
The temporary restraining order expires on November 13, unless the Court extends it.
The preliminary injunction will occur on November 7.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So nothing will actually change, except the hordes of wading immigrants will now have to simultaneously scream, “I cant breathe!” as they wade across in order to be admitted on the other side.
Border States – ‘Hey, Federal gov’t how about y’all secure the border’?
Feds – Nah we don’t wanna.
Border States -‘Well hell, we gonna do it ourselves’.
Feds – ‘Nah we don’t want you to do it either’.
Th Constitution grants the Federal Gov’t responsibility for ‘naturalization’. That is, despite current practice, a distinct from process than immigration. The first is about setting policy guidance and statutes as to who may or may not be allowed to become a Citizen. The second is about who can cross a border. I don’t see how it can be legitimately argued that a State can not prevent crossings outside of the ports of entry selected, designed, built, maintained and staffed by the Federal gov’t for the purpose of compliance with immigration statutes Congress passed and the Executive signed into law.
SCOTUS – “CommoChief is absolutely correct. So, we find he has no standing.”
A government enabling a invasion by a foreign power is Treason, and governments are unloading unwanted citizens and sending them here.
Yes, but how do we the people stop it?!
It’s infuriating!
I have often why there seems to be no recourse for prosecuting a sitting Democrat US President for not faithfully upholding, and defending the Constitution and executing the laws of the United States of America. I am disgusted by how the GOP response is severely lacking in immediate action.
What recourse could there be? Failure to carry out ones constitutional duties is not a crime. So the only recourse is impeachment and removal by the senate, which takes 2/3 of the senate to do.
Also, if it were a crime, who could bring such charges? The executive power of the United States is vested exclusively in the president. So only he can prosecute anyone in federal courts. Are you saying he should prosecute himself?!
So what do you think the GOP could do?
A border crisis, TROs, Pro-Palestine protest rallies around the globe, abortion issues, Israel at war, Trump gagged and tied up in court proceedings, but where’s Hunter? Silently but swiftly take out of the news cycle. See how that works?
Is the property on which the wire is located federal, state, or personal property?
This makes an argument for disallowing swaths of federal property within your state.
There is already such an argument. The Constitution limits federal land inside states to specific purposes, such as needful buildings like armories, forts, or port facilities. And the fedguv has to ask the state’s permission. And the state has to permit it. And the land is purchased, not taken.
No, it doesn’t. None of what you wrote is true. The federal government is entitled to buy whatever land it likes, anywhere it likes, for any purpose that it likes, and it doesn’t need any state’s permission. It can also take whatever land it likes, from private or public owners, provided that it pays full compensation. Nothing in the constitution says otherwise.
Dont be a pssy. Yu dont need a f ing fed court order to do what is right