Federal law vs. Texas law 

The federal government has exclusive authority to enforce immigration law. That’s because federal law takes precedence over state law. This precedence stems from the Supremacy Clause, a bedrock principle of the US Constitution. 

That’s why Texas petitioning the Supreme Court for the right to enforce its own immigration seemed so farfetched. It made as much sense as Trump petitioning for the right to rule as a dictator.

Indeed, you’d be hard-pressed to find a legal pundit who thought there was even a snowball’s chance in hell that the Court would hear its case. 

Is Texas law supreme?

The Texas law at issue would allow state officials to detain and deport anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. Your papers, please!

On Monday, the Court said it would temporarily block Texas from enforcing it. That surprised everyone. After all, why grant this “administrative stay” if it was so clear Texas had no standing even to bring this case? 

The Biden administration duly asked the Court to permanently block Texas based on the Supremacy Clause. Every legal pundit said the Court would oblige. 

I dissented. Specifically, I commented on a CNN report on this temporary stay as follows:

• The Republican-appointed justices know this law would license illegal racial profiling, primarily of Latinos. But they are political hacks in judicial garb. So they want to give the appearance of really grappling with the legal issues as legal cover to justify ultimately doing the political thing, namely greenlighting this Texas law. The Constitution be damned.

Sure enough, barely 24 hours later, the Court affirmed my dissent:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Texas to immediately begin enforcing a controversial immigration law that allows state officials to arrest and detain people they suspect of entering the country illegally. 

The court’s three liberals dissented. 

(CNN, March 19, 2024)

Clairvoyance? No. It’s just that the Republican justices who control this Court have given me cause to denounce them time and again as political hacks in judicial garb. 

Indeed, I did so most recently in “Supreme Court Decides to Hear Trump Immunity Claim, Giving Him De Facto Immunity” on February 29, 2024. And no, it would not surprise me if they eventually ignore legal precedent and torture logical reasoning to grant Trump immunity, effectively making him America’s first dictator.

Meanwhile, just months ago, Texas made clear to the Biden administration and the Court that its law takes precedence over federal law.   

The Supreme Court ruled this week against Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who has strung razor wire along miles of the frontier with Mexico.

But the Republican has vowed to add more razor wire to crack down on what he calls an invasion.

(BBC, January 25, 2024)

Texas Governor Greg Abbott got away with defying the court in that case. Yet, the Court is telegraphing its intent to reward him by giving Texas law precedence over federal law in this case. 

Supreme Court sanctioning secession 

I hope it’s finally dawning on the federal government that Texas is leading a red-state secession. That’s why it’s reveling in defying the Biden administration while trolling blue states by dumping migrants on them with civil war-like contempt.

Nobody should be surprised if Eagle Pass becomes the Fort Sumter of Red State plans to trigger a second civil war. Nothing could be more foreboding in this respect than the governors of 25 Red States declaring their intent to side with Texas.

These governors are putting their money where their mouths are. Most notably, they are sending members of their respective state National Guard to replace the federal Border Patrol.

Biden had better nip this Red State rebellion in the bud before it sprouts uncontrollable thorns. Because, make no mistake—they are waging war. 

Blue States had better start fighting before it’s all over, and we find ourselves living in a Putin-style autocracy with antebellum social values.