Judge Orders Texas’s Buoy Barrier Moved

In a lawsuit against the buoy barrier in the Rio Grande, Judge David Ezra slammed Texas

Photo by Pete Alexopoulos on Unsplash

HOUSTON: A federal judge agreed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and ordered the State of Texas to move the buoy barrier from the Rio Grande River. U.S. District Court Judge David Ezra ordered the state to stop installing more barricades and that the current barriers must be moved by September 15. The Judge also ordered the state to incur all costs in moving it.

“This is a United States District Court. It is not Congress. It is not the president,” Judge David Ezra said at an initial hearing on August 22. “I’m not here to engage in nor do I have any inclination to engage in any type of political comment in this decision.”

During the initial hearing, attorneys for the State of Texas argued in court documents that the 1,000-foot-long string of buoys and saw blades is not a structure that requires authorization. In the August 22 hearing, they argued that the state notified authorities by briefing the international body that regulates the Rio Grande before the barrier was installed.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) told Judge Ezra at the same hearing that it seeks the immediate removal of the floating barrier in the Rio Grande that Texas installed to deter migrants. The DOJ argues that the barrier threatens relations between the U.S. and Mexico and that it was installed without appropriate federal authorization. Judge Ezra ruled based on the constitutionality of the federal government’s sole authority over the regulation of immigration.

While awaiting a decision from the judge and in an effort to undermine the DOJ’s case, Texas Gov. Abbott ordered the buoy barrier moved to ensure it’s on the Texas side of the U.S.-Mexico border. What Texas attorneys couldn’t do was disregard the federal government’s sole authority over the regulation of immigration into the United States and the violation of 33 U.S.C. § 403.

“The Court has found that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that Defendants have violated and continue to be in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 403 and that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted on this basis,” reads the judge's order. “To the extent that further findings are required, the Court also find that Texas’s conduct irreparably harms the public safety, navigation, and the operations of federal agency officials in and around the Rio Grande.”

This decision is a preliminary injunction, not a final decision.

Backstory

After sitting idle for more than a year as Texas implemented brutal policies and passed cruel laws targeting and criminalizing asylum-seekers coming through the Texas-Mexico border, the Biden administration filed a lawsuit to stop the installation of a floating barrier in late July. The civil case came after much pressure from the public, advocates, and a letter demanding action signed by more than 85 Democrats in the House of Representatives led by Joaquin Castro.

While the White House has made great strides in other aspects of immigration, when it comes to the border, many questions continue to arise. Of those, allowing states like Florida, Texas, and Kansas to pass and enforce laws that circumvent federal authority are arguably the most glaring. That the current administration allows Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to turn migrants over to Texas state troopers - to be prosecuted for trespassing and denied the right to claim asylum under Gov. Abbott’s policies - is also an issue of contention for many.

The meek response from the highest office in the land and myriad federal agencies with the right to stop Texas is beyond dumbfounding. While Gov. Abbott is relying on the invocation of the “invasion clause” in both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that states have no right to circumvent the regulation of immigration by the federal government. As recently as 2012, in a case against Arizona, the courts agreed that the state violated the “supremacy clause” in the U.S. Constitution. The clause ensures states can not overrule the Constitution or federal law. Yet, federal agencies have stood down until now.

The idea of invoking lesser-known aspects of the Constitution opened the door for Republican legislators and governors to mislead the public using hyperbole. They can echo KKK-like propaganda suggesting asylum-seekers are taking something away from U.S. citizens or are somehow detrimental to U.S. society. The truth is that immigrants commit far less crime than U.S.-born citizens, use less welfare, boost the economy, and pay taxes for services they will never be allowed to use.

While it goes without saying that there is no “invasion” happening, Judge Ezra’s decision is the right one to ensure we maintain “law and order” - precisely what Republicans claim they want.

---

Arturo is a freelance writer, journalist, and publisher of The Antagonist Magazine and a regular contributor at Latino Rebels and Unicorn Riot. You can find him on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, and Threads. If you’d like to read more of Arturo’s work, join Medium here to support him directly.