Biden and Abbott have set the stage for one of the biggest state-federal immigration fights in more than a decade

The fight between the Biden administration and the state of Texas over the southern border has set the stage for one of the biggest immigration fights between the federal government and a state government in more than a decade.

Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott recently had his authorities take advantage city ​​property along the southern border, arresting migrants who cross illegally to enter, something the federal government has expressly opposed. The Biden administration later asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that Texas is overstepping its authority, sparking a legal battle the high court had not seen since 2012.

“Courts have traditionally held that states have only a limited role in enforcing our immigration laws. Texas is now challenging that traditional assumption, and we will have to see how the courts rule on this important issue,” he said. Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, professor of the practice of immigration law at Cornell, in an interview with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled a box known as Arizona v. United States, that states cannot enforce immigration laws after the state has tried to take matters into its own hands.

Texas' takeover of Shelby Park in Eagle Pass led to the Biden administration's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) saying Texas prevented Border Patrol agents from responding to the Jan. 13 drowning of a migrant mother and her two children in the Rio Grande River.

It was later discovered that federal authorities reported the drownings to Texas after they occurred, according to a Justice Department document dated Jan. 15. Supreme Court. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Here's How Turkish Smugglers Use Social Media to Help 'Citizens of Every Country' Get to US Border)

The Biden administration and Texas have also argued over whether the state has the right to erect or not razor wire along the southern border, whether state authorities can detain or not migrants for illegal entry, and whether Abbott can have or not buoys located on the Rio Grande.

Since the makeup of the high court has changed since the Arizona case, where the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in favor of the federal government, Abbott's Yale-Loehr case is likely to wait and South Texas College of Law Professor Josh Blackman told the DCNF.

“The point is now that we have three different judges on the Supreme Court than were on the court in the Arizona case, the current Supreme Court will rule the same way … and I suspect that Texas hopes that with more judges conservatives on the Supreme Court now, they could come away with a different result than Arizona,” Yale-Loehr said.

While the Arizona case was a victory for the federal government, it still left lingering questions about whether the state has any authority when it comes to border-related crimes, Blackman said.

“The Arizona case was more or less a victory for the federal government, but there were parts of Justice Kennedy's opinion that said we don't decide certain questions, and one of the questions he didn't decide was whether the state could actually do that. a crime to violate federal law. In other words, it's a state crime if you entered the country illegally. The court said we're not defining that now,” Blackman said.

“I'm pretty sure if the same issue came up today with this current court, it wouldn't come out the same way, Justice Kennedy was a dissenting vote back then in 2012. I don't think the doctrine is directly excluded with Texas. I think it still there is wiggle room, and the court could chart a different path,” Blackman said.

Latest messages from Jennie Taer (see everything)

We have zero tolerance for comments that contain violence, racism, profanity, profanity, doxing, or rude behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it, click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for engaging with us in a fruitful conversation.