USDC Judge Ezra Laughs Abbott And Paxton Out Of Court, On Rio Grande RHA Razor Wire Injunctions

So it goes.

The judge need not even hold a hearing to rule that the Rivers and Harbors Act grants him the unfettered equitable power to enjoin violations of it -- even by state Governors, like MAGA Abbott.

So this matter barrels toward a September trial date, on the merits. The US will win -- as we've long shown.

And, this is his opinion, from last night, in full ten pages -- and a bit:

. . .Texas has failed to produce any case law that supports its contention that a forward-looking injunction is unavailable as a matter of law under the RHA. Texas’s argument predominantly depends on In re Barnacle Maritime Mgmt., 233 F.3d 865 (5th Cir. 2000), a case in which injunctive relief was not sought and which does not pertain to Sections 10 or 12 of the RHA. Rather, Barnacle concerned the availability of implied damages under two other sections of the RHA, Sections 14 and 16. See id. at 867. Because the relief at issue in this motion is equitable in nature and pertains to Sections 10 and 12 of the RHA, the Court does not find Texas’s reliance on Barnacle to be persuasive.

Moreover, Texas has provided no case law supporting its theory that prospective injunctive relief preventing future violation of the RHA exceeds the bounds of congressional intent. The Supreme Court has emphasized that “[u]nless a statute in so many words, or by a necessary and inescapable inference, restricts the court's jurisdiction in equity, the full scope of that jurisdiction is to be recognized and applied.” Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 398, (1946). Here, Texas has provided no such inescapable inference that the Court lacks jurisdiction in equity to issue prospective relief at its discretion. . . .

The natural role of a court sitting in equity is to prevent future harm from occurring. See, e.g. United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953) (“Along with its power to hear the case, the court's power to grant injunctive relief survives discontinuance of the illegal conduct.”) Texas argues that the United States “provides no evidence that Congress in enacting the RHA in 1899 intended to clothe district courts with any powers other than the power to provide the judicial remedies Congress specified in Section 12.” (Dkt. # 220 at 2). To construe Section 12 of the RHA as Texas suggests, would be to ignore basic principles of equity and strip the Court of its discretionary role as an adjudicator. . . .

What a stupidly malevolent pair of putzes the people of Texas endure, as their Governor -- and AG.

Out.

नमस्ते