Texas Wins Legal Battle Against Biden Administration, Border Wall Construction to Resume
Houston, TX- Texas emerges victorious in yet another legal battle against the Biden administration, securing a ruling that mandates the completion of the border wall.
A ruling was issued on May 29, allowing a 60-day window for appeal. Since the Biden administration did not file an appeal by July 29, the court’s order is still fully in effect.
The ruling pertains to two combined lawsuits, one initiated by the Texas General Land Office under its former commissioner, George P. Bush, and the state of Texas; the other was filed jointly by Missouri and Texas.
Both cases were submitted to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas McAllen Division. A lawsuit has been filed that names the president, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and DHS as defendants. The second identifies the individuals and organizations involved, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection and its director, as defendants.
Additionally, there was a previous ruling in March that resulted in a victory for Texas in the combined cases.
The lawsuits claim that the president and Mayorkas have violated federal law and are seeking court instructions to ensure that they adhere to the law and utilize funds allocated by Congress for their designated purpose.
Approximately $1.4 billion was allocated by Congress in 2020 and 2021 to support the construction of a barrier system along the southwest border. Construction halted on the first day of President Joe Biden’s term. Due to the implementation of contracts, taxpayers incurred an initial cost of $6 million, followed by a daily expense of $3 million for the non-construction of the border wall. According to a report by The Center Square, materials that had been previously paid for to construct the wall were left to rust on the ground.
In October 2021, Missouri and Texas filed lawsuits against the president and Mayorkas, seeking a court order to compel them to finish the construction of the border wall. The GLO also filed a lawsuit against a company that possesses a vast amount of land near the U.S.-Mexico border, spanning approximately 31 linear miles along the Rio Grande. The initial construction site of Texas’ border wall was located on GLO land, as Gov. Greg Abbott took the initiative to build it.
Mayorkas, as he has done in numerous lawsuits, defended his authority to modify or enforce policies based on his own judgment. In this particular situation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put forth the argument that, despite the specific language in the law stating that funds should be allocated for the construction of the border wall and barriers, Mayorkas had the authority to determine how the funds could be utilized.
As the cases advanced and were consolidated, Mayorkas made the decision to redirect border wall funding towards environmental projects and maintenance repairs.
Judge Drew Tipton has ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting their requests for a permanent injunction. In his decision, Judge Tipton acknowledged the plaintiff’s success in proving their claims under the Administrative Procedures Act, specifically for violation of the Consolidated Appropriations Act.
A court order has been issued to halt border wall construction, preventing the federal government and related parties from implementing a July 22 Amended Plan. In addition, the federal government is now restricted from using border wall construction funds for anything other than the actual construction of physical barriers, such as additional walls, fencing, buoys, and so on. This includes prohibiting the funds from being used for mitigation and remediation efforts, repairing existing barriers, or installing system attributes at existing sites.
Tipton points out that the case is different from most APA cases as the plaintiffs contested a directive issued by Mayorkas through a memo, rather than an agency regulation. The author suggests that Mayorkas has the ability to reallocate the funds in question by revoking or retracting his memo.
However, the removal of the DHS Plan alone would not be sufficient to prevent DHS from making similar unlawful spending decisions in the future, as pointed out by the speaker. This is the reason behind the issuance of a permanent injunction as reported by The Center Square.
The speaker emphasized that their order offers additional relief and preserves the various obligations and policies of the Plan that the Plaintiffs have not contested. He also rejected any remaining allegations against the Biden administration.
According to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, this marks a significant win against the Biden administration’s efforts to defund the border wall. The Administration’s actions were deemed illegal as they tried to halt the construction of the border wall and redirect funds meant for American safety and sovereignty, ultimately working towards keeping the border open.
According to the speaker, the GLO, Texas, and Missouri were successful in their legal battle to halt an unlawful scheme. Now, the Administration has decided not to appeal their defeat and will be legally obligated to construct the wall.
