SCOTUS Border Security Razor Wire Decision: Experts Cite Constitutional Right of Texas to Resist Invasion

In a recent discussion on the War Room with Steve Bannon about the Supreme Court decision to keep the US border on behalf of Democrat Joe Biden – on Monday- regarding border security in Texas, speakers Jeff Clark, Renewing America, and Mike Davis, Article Three project, expressed disagreement with the majority decision.

Another expert chimed in about the ruling- reminding readers that this all has to do with allowing the Border Patrol to do “Their Jobs.”…

Each one of the War Room guests took their turn to argue that the majority, including making the argument justices Amy Coney Barrett and Roberts, misconstrued the case by focusing on federal preemption principles.

They both claimed that Texas has the constitutional right to resist invasion and protect its borders, and the federal government must stop invasions.

The conversation on Monday showed legal interpretations, the razor wire injunction’s status, and the decision’s potential consequences.

Mike Davis suggested that the Biden administration influenced the decision and criticized the impact on border security, predicting political consequences in the 2024 elections.

The discussion also raises concerns about protests outside justices’ homes and calls for consequences within the legal framework. The shadow docket and its use for preliminary injunctions are mentioned, with expectations for the case to proceed to the merits in the coming months.

Davis said it is time for protestors outside the Justice’s homes to face legal consequences.

Republican Governor Greg Abbott chimed in quickly about the decision and said that the matter is not settled:

CASE DETAILS: The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, has allowed Border Patrol agents to resume cutting razor wire installed by Texas along a stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border. The wire was placed to deter illegal migration, but the Justice Department argued it posed risks to migrants and hindered border patrol activities. The order clears the way for removing concertina wire along the Rio Grande. Texas Governor Greg Abbott had authorized the wire as part of measures to curb illegal crossings. The court’s decision is seen as a victory for the Biden administration while the legal battle over the wire continues.

“It’s important to understand this was a decision to lift an injunction from a cleverly crafted argument that merely asserted Border Patrol must have access to the border to do their jobs and remanded the underlying case back to lower courts. The actual case DHS vs Texas is still being litigated No. 23A607 DHS et al applicants v State of Texas Note: SCOTUSblog generally condones leftist issues BUT this link has the case files,” Taiho Decker, border expert posted on Twitter in response to the SCOTUS decision, adding a link to an article at SCOTUS Blog: Department of Homeland Security v. Texas

Clark argued that the majority’s decision on border security is misconceived, focusing on federal preemption principles. He contends that Texas has a constitutional right to resist invasion, superior to federal immigration law.

The discussion draws parallels to historical Supreme Court cases and criticizes the interpretation of immigration laws. Clark hopes Justice Amy Coney Barrett will recognize the Fifth Circuit’s stance when fully briefed.

The conversation touches on the razor wire injunction, emphasizing Texas’s right to protect itself. The process, discussed as part of the shadow docket, involves determining if the preliminary injunction will stand during the case’s merits, expected to be addressed in the coming months.

Watch Jeff Clark:

Mike Davis criticized the Supreme Court’s decision, attributing it to the Biden administration influencing conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

He views it as a Pyrrhic victory for President Biden, accusing him of strong-arming justices to support his border policies.

Davis predicts negative consequences in the 2024 elections, emphasizing concerns about illegal migrants impacting social services. He calls for legal ramifications for protests outside justices’ homes, suggesting that such actions have rattled the justices.

The discussion touches on the shadow docket and the historical context of using it to address pressing issues.

Watch Mike Davis:

Ben Bergquam's Updates

Sign up today to get updates from Ben from Frontline America and Real America's Voice. Ben writes every email personally. Don't miss out!

This will close in 0 seconds