Next Week, The State Of Texas Must Defend -- At Trial, In Del Rio -- Its Killing Of Asylum Seekers On The Rio Grande, Via Floating Razor Wire...

The trial is to decide whether a permanent (as opposed to temporary) injunction should issue, removing the existing floating razor wire barrier, and preventing all future such builds, by Texas.

Since the ruby red Fifth Circuit authored an opinion saying it wasn't sure the shallow Rio Grande River waters at Eagle Pass are presently "navigable waters", the US has wisely decided to only prove that these waters meet the historical test for what makes it a federal waterway. That greatly simplifies the trial, and puts the river's middle under federal rather than state control. Of course, to the south of the middle is owned by the government of. . . Mexico. So Texas has no business obstructing federal or Mexico's waterways. That is how the trial will end, in my opinion. Here's a bit from two documents filed overnight (here, and here), setting the new parameters for the trial:

. . .Defendants informed the Court and the United States by email on October 24, 2024, that they will require more than a week to present their case. The United States notes that the issues on which it will present trial evidence are narrower, following the Fifth Circuit’s recent en banc decision, than the parties originally had anticipated when their filed their first set of pre-trial submissions on July 26, 2024. See United States v. Abbott, 110 F.4th 700 (5th Cir. July 30, 2024).

Specifically, in light of that decision, the United States has proposed no findings of fact or conclusions of law that the Rio Grande may be determined a “navigable” water subject to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act based on “susceptibility to commercial navigation with reasonable improvements” now or in the future. See id. at 717-18; see also ECF 227 at 14-15; ECF 236 at 1-3. Instead, the United States now only proposes findings and conclusions that the Rio Grande may be determined a navigable water based on evidence that it “historically was used or could have been used for commercial navigation.” See Abbott, 110 F.4th at 710-11. . . .

This is a straightforward civil enforcement case brought under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), 33 U.S.C. § 403. Defendants stipulate that they installed a floating buoy barrier in the Rio Grande without seeking or obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 10. Nor did they have any other federal authorization. The evidence at trial will show that Defendants’ action violated Section 10, and the harm caused by this violation and other equitable factors support a permanent injunction as requested in Paragraphs 46 a-b. and d.-e. of the First Amended Complaint. ECF 60 ¶ 46.a-b., d-e.

The relevant segment of the Rio Grande, specifically between mile markers 275.5 and 610 and inclusive of the area in the vicinity of the floating barrier, is a “navigable river” and a navigable “water of the United States” under Section 10. Texas’ placement of the floating barrier violated and is violating Section 10—both its first clause (“obstruction . . . to the navigable capacity”) and, independently, its second clause (“building of . . . structures”). 33 U.S.C. § 403. . . .

Now you know. And since we've previously covered the young Louisiana "STEM on Fleek" math whizzes who used trig to offer a new proof of Pythagoras, we will wait a week to put up the peer reviewed journal article they now hold -- saving it for election day. Smile. . . we will all need a distraction, whilst we await the fate of our democracy -- and our nation.

नमस्ते