12 Comments

As the Fifth Circuit Turns.

Expand full comment
Mar 20·edited Mar 20

As the DOJ noted in the appeal to SCOTUS, Texas' claim of 'mirroring' federal law is bogus. It doesn't match the text or the intent of SB4. And as is obvious in today's hearing, even the lawyer for Texas doesn't really know what SB4 is, or does.

In particular, the line of questioning about what happens when Texas law enforcement accompanies a migrant to the border with Mexico, but Mexico won't allow them to cross, demonstrated how badly this law was defined. "Oh, we'll just arrest them again." didn't sit well with the judge.

What's missed in much of this is that the Texas legislature had no intention of SB4 actually surviving a court challenge. Paxton et al may brag about the few minutes the law was allowed, but if the legislators really intended for SB4 to be enforced they would have provided some funding for it. After all, it would cost Texas tens of billions of dollars. They didn't provide any funding.

This whole thing is nothing but a PR event—getting the media to say, again and again, 'crises at the border'. Even though there is no current crises at the border because of agreements worked out with Mexico and efforts such as the very successful Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Cuban, and Haitian parole program...which Texas sued DHS about, and which a Trump judge (Tipton) painstakingly rejected.

Another Texas judicial failure, but since it was TIpton and not Ezra (who too many justices in the 5th despise for whatever reasons) who issued the order, no 'administrative stay' nonsense occurred.

Expand full comment

The other thing I haven’t seen discussed is what they would do with people who aren’t from Mexico who get caught up in this. There may be no funding but we’ve never seen that stop the rabid in local law enforcement who see a path to their view of glory. Since I agree this is a PR stunt I doubt it came up in discussion by the MAGA shills who created this stunt/law, but Mexico would be rightly angered by Texas dumping random foreign nationals over their border for them to deal with.

Expand full comment

Whiplash is perfect word to use. Great reporting and updates Chris.

Expand full comment

Because I'm not a lawyer - but why wouldn't the fifth circuit defer this to congress? It is Congress that determines cross-border policy.

Expand full comment

Well, we are talking about Texas here, where the motto The Lone Star State is occasionally expressed by secessionists who would love to go it on their own.

Expand full comment

Because these judges have been thoroughly politicized. Precedent and judicial philosophy be damned.

Expand full comment

I wonder if this will get Moscow Mike Johnson off of his ass to allow the cross border policy to come to the house floor now for voting. Of course we know (T)rump-roast doesn't want this voted on in the house, as there is an extremely high likelihood the new cross border policy would be approved in the house, rump-roast wants to inflate the chaos.

Expand full comment

And now we hear directly from Mexico, who just filed a friend of the court brief in the SB4 case

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049.138.0.pdf

Expand full comment

Thank you Chris! Especially

for the questioning by judges.

More posturing from Texas

with S B.4 and no way to

fund it. With Mexico saying

they won't take back anyone

who crosses, Texas would

indeed be committing a

Border Crisis.

Expand full comment

In regards to the article itself, does Congress have a policy for declaring stateless a person they don't want but the other side won't take back?

Expand full comment

Could there yet be a case for investigating whether John Roberts helped to rig the election process in favour of George Bush, at the expense of President Gore?

Expand full comment