In a significant legal development, Texas secured a victory against the Biden administration, compelling the completion of the border wall along the Texas-Mexico boundary. The ruling, issued on May 29, 2023, remains in effect as the Biden administration did not appeal within the 60-day window.
Just The News reported that the legal battle began when Texas and Missouri filed separate lawsuits against the federal government over the halted border wall construction. Both lawsuits were eventually consolidated and presented before the U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas McAllen Division.
The first lawsuit came from the Texas General Land Office (GLO) and the state of Texas. The second was jointly filed by Missouri and Texas. The defendants in these lawsuits included President Joe Biden, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, DHS, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
In 2020 and 2021, Congress had allocated $1.4 billion explicitly for constructing the border wall. However, things took a turn when President Biden ordered the halting of the wall construction on his first day in office. This cessation initially cost taxpayers an estimated $6 million, with further costs reportedly rising to $3 million per day as materials for the construction were left unused and rusting.
In October 2021, Missouri and Texas escalated their efforts by filing a consolidated lawsuit. They requested that the court mandate the continuation and completion of the border wall. The GLO, owning over 500,000 acres near the Texas-Mexico border, including 31 linear miles along the Rio Grande, played a pivotal role in this legal maneuver.
Responding to the stalled federal efforts, Texas Governor Greg Abbott initiated the state’s border wall construction project on GLO-owned land.
Meanwhile, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas defended the administration's stance by arguing that he had the discretion to use the funds differently, reallocating the money towards environmental projects and maintenance efforts.
The legal proceedings culminated with Judge Drew Tipton of the U.S. District Court issuing a permanent injunction. This order barred the federal government from halting the border wall construction and prohibited them from reallocating funds meant for physical barrier construction.
Judge Tipton's ruling had a significant implication: it restricted the use of the allocated funds exclusively for the physical construction of the border barrier. This legally binding decision created an unyielding scenario for the Biden administration.
As the deadline for an appeal approached, the Biden administration chose not to challenge the ruling, thereby allowing Judge Tipton's decision to stand. The 60-day appeal window closed on July 29, confirming Texas' victory in the lawsuit.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton expressed his satisfaction with the outcome, stating, "This is a final victory against Biden’s attempt to defund the border wall. His Administration illegally sought to prevent the construction of the border wall and illegally attempted to repurpose the money allocated for American safety and sovereignty, working instead to keep the border open.”
Paxton further commented, “The GLO, Texas, and Missouri sued and won to stop their unlawful scheme. Now, the Administration has thrown in the towel by declining to appeal their defeat and will be legally required to build the wall.”
The administration's decision not to appeal effectively means that the federal government must now proceed with the border wall’s construction as per the court's ruling. The allocated funds initially designated by Congress for this purpose will remain reserved and utilized solely for building the physical barrier along the Texas-Mexico border.
The ramifications of this outcome reflect both the legal precedents set and the ongoing complexities surrounding border security and immigration policies in the United States.
The state-level intervention and subsequent judicial orders exemplify the tensions between federal and state authorities concerning border management.
As Texas moves forward with the mandated completion of the wall, the political and logistical aspects of border security continue to be a central issue in American governance, highlighting the ever-evolving landscape of U.S. immigration policy.
This case serves as a notable example of state-led initiatives impacting federal governance, particularly in contentious areas such as border security. The decision to complete the wall construction reaffirms the legal obligations and fiscal appropriations set forth by Congress, concluding a year-long legal struggle initiated by Texas and Missouri.
The resolution of this case underscores the significant interplay between state and federal regulations, showcasing the broader implications for future administrative decisions regarding border security and federal fund allocation.
In conclusion, the Biden administration's choice not to appeal has solidified Texas' legal victory, necessitating the continuation and completion of the border wall construction as per the court's directive.
This resolution emphasizes the complexities and legal battles inherent in U.S. border policies. Texas and Missouri won a lawsuit against the Biden administration, requiring the border wall’s completion; the administration did not appeal the ruling.
