In Which Texas Whines About Matters Already Mooted By The Supremes, In The Land Razor Wire Case -- At Eagle Pass / Shelby Park...

The issues that USDC Chief Judge Alia Moses ought to address in her rapidly disappearing 60 day window, have been set out -- and no surprise -- Texas claims she should focus on matters. . . which the US Supreme Court has already ruled. . . irrelevant, by slapping down the Fifth Circuit, and staying Moses' order, insofar as it violates federal law. [Background on this 60 day remand, here. But it is already down to 40 days, now.]

Here's the full two sided discussion, of ten pages -- filed overnight in Del Rio, Texas. But you may assume that Judge Moses will re-affirm the right of the CBP and DHS to remove razor wire, in order to continue to discharge the federal immigration law and policy duties each holds. That is not within the State of Texas's purview, in any sense.

I do want to address one particularly odious irrelevant matter that Texas puts forward here: Texas claims that it can show that border crossings have diminished, since it put up the barbarous concertina wire -- and it urges that is a reason to leave Texas alone. Then us be clear: shooting asylum seekers, as they wade into the Mexico side of the Rio Grande, WILL ALSO reduce the numbers of people crossing.

But we (as a supposedly civilized nation) generally frown on. . . senseless murder (even if MAGA Gov. Abbott would only offer thoughts and prayers to the bereaved). Just the same -- we ought to frown upon vigilante efforts by Texas -- using 1960s Berlin Wall tactics, that are beyond their purview. Brutal tactics. If anything, if Judge Moses hears those claims, she ought to immediately kick Texas to the curb -- and out of her court -- since these barbarian vigilante efforts violate our treaty obligations, and our standing federal law. Yes, they must be removed.

And I'll predict she will so rule, as she did last time this was before her:

. . .[T]he parties dispute various issues that have arisen since the Court’s November 29 order. Most significantly, the parties do not agree regarding the extent of Texas’s actions since January 10, 2024 to obstruct Border Patrol from performing its statutory duties in the Shelby Park area. It was appropriate for Defendants to inform the Supreme Court immediately that Texas had altered the circumstances under which the Fifth Circuit had issued the injunction pending appeal, including circumstances relevant to the emergency exception the parties agreed that injunction contained. . . .

But any factual disputes about the precise access denied to federal agents in Eagle Pass while the Fifth Circuit’s now-vacated injunction was in place -- even if they are potentially within the limited remand -- are no longer relevant to the issues before the Fifth Circuit or this Court. The Supreme Court vacated the injunction despite any factual disputes. And the question now is whether Border Patrol’s current access to the Shelby Park area has changed in ways that alter the propriety of prospective injunctive relief. As the federal government has already shown -- and will further demonstrate if necessary -- the increased hindrances that Texas has placed between Border Patrol and the border further demonstrates that injunctive relief against the United States is inappropriate. . . .

Now you know -- onward.

नमस्ते