Fifth Circuit Rules Against Texas in Case Where State Claimed Immigration and Drug Smuggling Qualify as "Invasion"
The ruling is mostly based on statutory issues, but also covers the "invasion" question.
The ruling is mostly based on statutory issues, but also covers the "invasion" question.
The court ruled that the definition of "invasion" is a political question, and that Texas therefore could not rely on the Invasion Clause to justify placing buoys in the Rio Grande River in defiance of federal law.
If Texas is right to argue that illegal immigration and cross-border drug smuggling qualify as "invasion," then the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended at any time - thereby enabling executive detention without trial.
The argument is contrary to the text and original meaning of the Constitution, goes aginst precedent, and would have absurd consequences if accepted by courts.
I have posted his response to my previous post, along with a rejoinder.
A critique of claims that the federal government and the states can use military force to prevent immigration, based on constitutional powers to prevent "invasion."
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.