Supreme Court's Alito pauses Texas law on illegal border crossings

Reuters ^ | March 5, 2024 | Daniel Wiessner

[Dr. Franklin]

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Monday temporarily blocked a judicial decision that would let a Texas law take effect to give state officials broad powers to arrest, prosecute and order the removal of people who illegally cross the border from Mexico.

Alito issued his order - requested by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration - after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Saturday paused a federal judge's ruling that had blocked the Republican-backed Texas law.

His order is set to expire on March 13 but he or the full Supreme Court could take further action before then. Alito handles certain emergency matters involving cases from a group of states including Texas. The 5th Circuit ruling would have permitted the measure, known as SB4, to go into effect even as Biden's administration presses forward with a legal challenge claiming the statute unlawfully interferes with the federal government's enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.

The 5th Circuit stayed its decision for seven days to give the administration a chance to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Justice Department filed a petition with the Supreme Court on Monday arguing that the 5th Circuit's decision was wrong and that letting the law take effect would harm the U.S. relationship with Mexico and other countries. "And beyond its disruptive foreign relations effects, SB4 would create chaos in the United States' efforts to administer federal immigration laws in Texas," Justice Department lawyers wrote.

...

If Alito had not acted, the law would have taken effect on March 10 pending an appeal of last week's decision by U.S. District Judge David Ezra in Austin.

[lurk]

It’s a prudent move by Alito.

It gives everyone a few days to talk about it, maybe even give SCOTUS the option of ruling on it.

It’s a seminal issue. Does a state have the right to enforce the law if the Fed Gov refuses to fulfill its role?

[gitmo]

Yeah, let’s put a hold on the right to self-defense while we’re at it.

[maddog55]

It’s the Federal governments job to protect a state against invasion.

Article IV, Section 4 states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.” (Emphasis added)

The Guarantee Clause

The text and original meaning of Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution clearly support the conclusion that all branches of the federal government, including the judiciary, are obligated to perform their respective constitutional functions so as to protect each of the states from any kind of lawless invasion that may occur.

The federal government is currently in violation of its Guarantee Clause obligation to protect the states from invasion.

https://americarenewing.com/issues/the-federal-governments-guarantee-to-protect-the-states-against-invasion/

[BoringGuy]

Not sure this is a good/evil decision...more of this is the way the legal system operates

1. There is a legal question
2. In recognition of this and a realization that due to the importance of this question, it will run all the way through to SCOTUSEach court has stayed its ruling to mitigate harm to the offended party no matter which one
3. IMHO this is fairly normal in such a high profile case (maintain the status quo until fully adjudicated)

I don't like it but am willing to let the justice system grind slowly and work. In the meantime I just have to depend on barriers and razor wire in Eagle pass to hold back a flood.

[CodeToad]

The USC states the feds are responsible but it does not limit the States to do so as well.

[linMcHlp]

[joe fonebone]

Don’t you mean the difference between a bush league chamber of commerce worshiping republiCAN’T and a strict constituionalist?
The constituition grants the fed the right to regulate immigration.
Period.
End of discussion.

Now if you wanted to by pass that pesky constitution thingie, you would have a team coming with things that will pass must, say, stopping people and asking for ID. If you do not have valid state recognized ID, we transport you back to the immigration holding area.
Cloward/Piven.
Overload the system.

But, noooo... instead we get bombarded with BS that we KNOW will get shot down by the courts.
This is intentional.
You don’t get votes by solving the problem.
You get votes by pissing people off!!!!
You are being played.
You are being played by the bush league chamber of commecc worshiping republiCAN’Ts that not only want but support the illegal wave.
Stop being played.
Stop being stupid.
Demand intellegence.
Demand results.

[castlebrew]

“Texas can’t supercede federal law on immigration.”

Texas isn’t superseding federal immigration law. Feds aren’t enforcing it, and are actively aiding & abetting illegal immigration.

Feds have affirmatively rejected their Article IV, Section 4 duties, as delegated to them by the States. The responsibility to enforce the border therefore falls back to the States (who received that duty from the People). 10th Amendment applies.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Justice Alito is more than likely putting a temporary stay in place until the SCOTUS conferences on the issue to decide whether or not to get involved.

[zeugma]

I may start an Anti-Federalist Society soon, but I am a bit busy lately.

Most educated folks are aware of the Federalist Papers. What most folk are not familiar with, was that these were a part of a dialogue in the public square. The Letters From a Federal Farmer (HTML)(EPUB) (PDF) were the other side of the discussion.

Among other things, the Anti-federalists wanted to see the inclusion of additional amendments, which came to be called the Bill of Rights. Fortunately, they won the day on this. Without it our gun laws would likely more resemble Canada's or Britain's by today.

I'd be happy with a more widespread knowledge of both sides of the discussions.

[maddog55]

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

First part says it all: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States...

Article IV, Section 4 delegates that power to the federal government by the Constitution and states specifically:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.” (Emphasis added)

The fact the feds aren’t doing their job is treason in my book but it’s still their responsibility. That’s where the fight needs to be.

You can argue all day with your 10th amendment argument but as stated: Article IV, Section 4 delegates that power to the federal government and the 10th amendment doesn’t cover what Texas is doing because of that simple fact.

I am all for what Texas and Governor Abbott is doing because its an in your face do your f’n job to the federal government and needs to be done. Hopefully other states will follow.

[zeugma]

Justice Alito is not evil.

No, but he is also not looking at the big picture. Alito is mostly a statist, like almost all judges on the supreme court.He is much more willing to side with federal power than anything else (examples are found in his treatment of 'asset forfeiture', the 'drug war', among other things.

Where Texas has erred is that they need to make a formal declaration of invasion and then start acting accordingly. It is past time to start shooting some of the foreign invaders. I don't expect it would take many casualties to stop the flood completely.More are dying in the Darien among other places. Killing a few invaders at the border is the humanitarian thing to do.

[zeugma]

The main issue here is Biden, Mayorkas and the rest of his administration IS NOT following law and needs to be held accountable.

How do you propose we fix that, if not actually having states defend their own borders. This is objectively an invasion The Feral government has a Constitutinal duty to protect states from invasion.

[maddog55]

Why not comprehend what I posted and figure it out.

[linMcHlp]

zeugma:

It is past time to start shooting some of the foreign invaders. I don't expect it would take many casualties to stop the flood completely. More are dying in the Darien among other places. Killing a few invaders at the border is the humanitarian thing to do.

I disagree with that part of your reply, above. Shooting, killing, are not necessary.

Build the wall, so all who enter MUST come thru established entry points.

Texas CAN build the wall. But Texas and the federal government - combined - set the rate of entry, IMHO.

[Dr. Franklin]

Don’t you mean the difference between a bush league chamber of commerce worshiping republiCAN’T and a strict constituionalist?

No, I mean the difference between a conservative who thinks that the executive branch needs to apply the laws passed by Congress and not ignore them, and a elitist federalist who thinks the federal government can do anything it wants because the federalists say so.

The constituition grants the fed the right to regulate immigration. Period. End of discussio

The word "immigration" appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. Federalist judges have found the federal government has a right to regulate immigration, but a Jeffersonian view of that document is that it is reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. We just haven't had a Jeffersonian Supreme Court Justice in ages.

Now if you wanted to by pass that pesky constitution thingie, you would have a team coming with things that will pass must, say, stopping people and asking for ID. If you do not have valid state recognized ID, we transport you back to the immigration holding area.

No, it's really very simple. The owner of land has a right to control passage over that land, unless some easement is recognized by law. So, if the land is crossed without permission, it's trespassing and Texas and other states have a right to criminally prosecute those who are trespassing on the land. Unless the Federal government has paid just compensation to the owners of the land to allow foreigners to cross private, or state owned property, the feds need to shut up about federalism. This is about trespassing under state law. American citizens can be prosecuted for not exiting the U.S. from an approved border crossing. Yet, you think its OK for foreigners to enter without using the border crossings. It's like a burglar breaking in a house by the window and not knocking on the front door. It's that simple.

[Dr. Franklin]

Most educated folks are aware of the Federalist Papers. What most folk are not familiar with, was that these were a part of a dialogue in the public square. The Letters From a Federal Farmer (HTML)(EPUB) (PDF) were the other side of the discussion.
Among other things, the Anti-federalists wanted to see the inclusion of additional amendments, which came to be called the Bill of Rights. Fortunately, they won the day on this. Without it our gun laws would likely more resemble Canada's or Britain's by today.
I'd be happy with a more widespread knowledge of both sides of the discussions.

The "Federal Farmer" was just one of several Anti-Federalist publications:
Anti-Federalist Papers
Yes, we eventually got a Bill of Rights, but that was an afterthought to the elites who drafted the U.S. Constitution along with the propaganda of its preamble which is a fraud. The Bill of Rights is honored by the government in its breach. Civil rights claims rarely succeed, largely due to legal immunity granted by the federal courts. The Anti-Federalists feared the federal courts, and they have been proven correct.

[Dr. Franklin]

No, but he is also not looking at the big picture. Alito is mostly a statist, like almost all judges on the supreme court.He is much more willing to side with federal power than anything else (examples are found in his treatment of 'asset forfeiture', the 'drug war', among other things.

In brief, Alito thinks all is right with the world because he in on top. He defends the right of the state to do whatever it wants, along with its agents, while he is hostile to the rights of the individual. He defines the Bill of Rights narrowly, and finds that government officials have immunity when they violate rights. He prefers the federal government over the state government. Hence he is a federalist.

[joe fonebone]

After 1808, the federal government, namely Congress has sole authority over immigration and naturalization.
While the word immigration doesn’t appear in the constitution, from the earliest days of our country, the courts have ruled, time and time again, that immigration is implied in the naturalization clause.
Period.
End of discussion.
Like I said earlier in my post, these people trying to pass laws that are clearly unconstitutional are playing you.
They are using your anger to gain votes, while continuing to allow this illegal crap that they crave.

[Dr. Franklin]

After 1808, the federal government, namely Congress has sole authority over immigration and naturalization.

And the laws Congress passed have been ignored by the Bidet Regime. Hence, the states must act to prevent an invasion.