DOJ Sues Texas Over Rio Grande Border Barriers
Photo by U.S. Customs and Border Protection/Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Abraham Garcia, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
After all the back-and-forth in the media between the Biden Administration and Texas Governor Abbott over the floating border barriers, the DOJ is suing Texas over it.
USA Today:
The Department of Justice filed suit on Monday against the state of Texas after its governor refused to remove a floating border barrier that the Biden administration says was unlawfully put into place.
“We allege that Texas has flouted federal law by installing a barrier in the Rio Grande without obtaining the required federal authorization,” Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta said in a statement. “This floating barrier poses threats to navigation and public safety and presents humanitarian concerns. Additionally, the presence of the floating barrier has prompted diplomatic protests by Mexico and risks damaging U.S. foreign policy.”
The White House said Monday that Abbott’s actions are “dangerous” and “unlawful” after the Republican governor defied DOJ’s request and told the president he would see the Biden administration in court.
The Department of Justice sent Abbott a letter on Thursday ordering him to remove a floating barrier in the Rio Grande River or face legal action. Texas’ actions “violate federal law” and “raise humanitarian concerns,” DOJ warned. It gave Texas until Monday to remove the barrier.
USA TODAY reported on Friday that migrant children and adults have been lacerated by razor wire installed by the state of Texas.
Migrants rest near Buoys on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande in Eagle Pass, Texas on July 20, 2023. The buoys were installed on orders by Texas Governor Greg Abbot to prevent migrants from reaching the north embankment of the Rio Grande on the international boundary between Mexico and the U.S. (Via OlyDrop)
Abbott responded on Monday, blaming President Joe Biden’s immigration policies for migrant deaths, saying they encouraged migrants to cross “illegally through the water, instead of safely and legally at a port of entry.”In his letter, Abbott suggested the president is the one to blame.
“Nobody drowns on a bridge,” Abbott replied. “It has been under your watch that migrants have suffered an unprecedented crisis of inhumanity.”
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Abbott’s actions are making it difficult for federal officials to patrol the area and access the Rio Grande River, where four migrants have drowned.
Was kinda interested in what the Mexico ‘objecting’ angle might be.
“Bárcena [Mexico’s Interior Minister] told reporters that the Mexican government sent a diplomatic letter to the U.S. on June 26 stating the barriers are in violation of a 1944 water treaty, Reuters reported. The Associated Press reported Friday that Bárcena plans to send an inspection team to the Rio Grande to see if the barrier extends into Mexico’s side of the border and if it impedes the flow of water, which would violate the treaty.”
A) Impinging on Mexico’s border seems reasonable.
B) Impeding the flow of water? Unless that’s a term of art… no.
C) Something not mentioned?
The 1944 Treaty upon cursory inspection does indeed seem to focus solely on Water Rights and is not what we’d call a border/process treaty.
Now, as to States impinging on Federal prerogatives? That’s another matter.Report
International river treaties and interstate river compacts generally forbid building “structures” in the river without authorization from all the parties. Structure can cover a lot of ground. Does it impede navigation at any point in the year? Does it impede economic activities at any point in the year? What are the impacts in both flood years and drought years? When these get to court, special masters often take years making a decision about such.
Farther upstream, I believe that Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado went through three special masters.Report
After skimming the 28 Articles… it seems that only Dams and ‘Diversionary Structures’ are specifically regulated… and *only* in so far as the structures divert water to either country putting at risk downstream consumption guarantees. As long as the water flows, boundaries respected and the river remains navigable… I don’t see a specific requirement for approval.
I could, however see a bureaucratic agency set up to administer the provisions of the treaty making maximalist claims, though.
Another news article is slightly more precise that the Mexican govt is indeed treating the buoys as ‘diversionary structures’ which would make them subject to the treaty. Honestly, my layman’s reading would challenge Mexico to demonstrate how the structures divert the river into the US thereby deprecating the flow and Mexico’s entitlement. I mean, I don’t think they can and the objection is somewhat spurious. Unless I’ve skimmed over some other relevant definition of ‘Diversionary Structures’.
There’s also a specific carve-out for activities related to Policing… so push/shove Abbott could also invoke policing.
I’m not sure I have much of an opinion about 1000 ft of buoys on a 1,200 mile border… and if my 25yrs of living near the Shenandoah has taught me anything its that nothing you build ‘in’ a river stays for more than a few years or the first big flood.
My point is that I don’t think an International Treaty has much bearing on this matter… and it’s a little silly that the Media are using it to sort of ‘compound’ the wrongness. The Federal Govt’s prerogative to set boarders and immigration Policy? Well, that’s the only thing that matters here.Report
oh lord another thing I may have to research and include in this fall’s EPL class. I’ve already got “East Palestine Train Derailment” and “Tree Law” on the list of “new topics”
(I cover both water and land rights briefly in the class)Report
Very topical… you should!Report
I agree with you in principle. At the level of small details, there are cement anchors for the buoy string. Texas says that they are mid-channel; I expect Mexico will challenge whether any part of any anchor extends onto Mexican riverbed. (Side question: I don’t know if the border is mid-channel when the river decides to change course, or if it’s now GPS-surveyed down to an inch independently of what the river decides.) Less problematic, somewhere in there is a mid-channel island. Texas filled the part of the channel between the island and the US riverbank. Reports are that the flow through the remaining channel is measurably affected.
This SCOTUS seems to be inclined to shift authority away from the federal government towards the states. I’m not sure they’re quite ready to let Texas claim this much authority. AZ’s Republican governor built an eyesore of a border barricade — on the US side of the actual line — out of 2,200 shipping containers. The US District Court slapped them down and the state is dismantling the barrier rather than appealing. IIRC AZ will be out at least $100M that was spent acquiring, piling, and removing the containers. Quite possibly much more if the courts hold them liable for damage done to the environment.Report
Yeah, I think the treaty specifies mid-point for border; but yes, you’d think Abbott & Co. would put them at 33% rather than mid-point for just those reasons.Report
I stand by my original misreading of this headline as being about Border Terriers. Tell me there’d be a more energetic herding breed than a border collie / terrier mix. Send out a pack of border terriers, you won’t need border barriers.Report
You’d just have fat contented border terriers full of treats!Report
I always forget about fat terriers, the animal world’s equivalent to the five-years-retired football player who hasn’t learned to eat less than 6000 calories. You’re born to be lean, my friend!Report
Yeah there’s something very contradictory about a chonk terrier. They don’t quite understand why everything isn’t working quite right but they know something is off.Report