Supreme Court temporarily supports Biden in dispute with Texas over border barrier

The Supreme Court on Monday sided with the Biden administration in a dispute over a concertina wire barrier built by Texas along the Mexican border. The justices temporarily reversed an appeals court ruling that had generally banned federal officials from removing the wire.

The Supreme Court's short order did not contain any reasoning, which is typical of judges who deal with emergency applications. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's three liberal members to form a majority.

The dispute is part of an escalating legal battle between Texas and the Biden administration over border security.

Since 2021, Gov. Greg Abbott, a third-term Republican, has waged an aggressive multibillion-dollar campaign to impose stricter measures at the southern border to deter migrants from entering the country. These include placing concertina wire along the banks of the Rio Grande and installing a barrier of buoys in the river.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last month limited the ability of federal Border Patrol agents to cut the wire.

The panel prohibited officers from “damaging, destroying, or otherwise interfering with Texas c-wire fencing” while the appeal is pending, but made an exception for medical emergencies likely to result in “serious bodily harm or death.”

Ken Paxton, Texas' attorney general, sued the government in October, saying Border Patrol agents unlawfully destroyed state property and thwarted state efforts to prevent migrants from crossing the border. According to the lawsuit, border agents cut the wire at least 20 times “to allow aliens to illegally enter Texas.”

Migrants have been injured by the wire, and drownings in the Rio Grande's swift currents are becoming increasingly common. In court papersMr. Paxton argued that federal officials using bolt cutters and forklifts had destroyed portions of the barrier for no reason other than to allow migrants to enter.

In the Biden administration emergency applicationAttorney General Elizabeth B. Prelogar rejected the claim that federal officials had done anything improper. “Border Patrol officers' discretion regarding the means to facilitate the apprehension, inspection, and processing of noncitizens in no way indicates that they are cutting wire for impermissible purposes,” she wrote.

Ms. Prelogar called the appeals court's order “manifestly wrong” and said the barrier interfered with the responsibilities of Border Patrol agents.

“The order prohibits agents from passing through or moving physical obstacles established by the State that impede access to the border they are assigned to patrol and to the individuals they are assigned to arrest and inspect,” she wrote. “And it eliminates an important form of officer discretion to prevent the development of deadly situations, including by mitigating the serious risks of drowning and death from hypothermia or heat exposure.”

The exception for medical emergencies was insufficient, Ms. Prelogar wrote. “It can take 10 to 30 minutes to cut through the dense layers of razor wire in Texas,” she wrote. “By the time a medical emergency occurs, it may be too late to provide life-saving assistance.”

The order was also unjustified, Ms. Prelogar wrote. “Weighed against the impairment of federal law enforcement and the risk to human life,” she wrote, “the appeals court cited that Texas' damages only hurt the price of wire and the cost of closing a hole created by Border Patrol agents.”

Mr. Paxton asked the justices to strike a different balance.

“It is in the public interest to deter unlawful agency actions and respect property rights,” he wrote. “It is also in the public interest to reduce the flow of deadly fentanyl; combating human trafficking; Protect Texans from unlawful trespasses and violent attacks by criminal cartels; and minimizing the risks to people, both U.S. citizens and migrants, of drowning while making dangerous journeys to and through illegal entry points.”