HomeElection News

Texas’ Floating Barrier in Rio Grande Temporarily Upheld Amid Legal Dispute

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a floating barrier in the Rio Grande, installed by Texas, can remain in place for now. The decision overturns a previous ruling and is part of a larger legal conflict between Texas and the Biden administration over border control measures. The dispute centers on whether Texas violated the federal Rivers and Harbor Act by installing the barrier without federal approval.

The series of linked, concrete-anchored buoys stretches roughly the length of three soccer fields in one of the busiest hotspots for illegal border crossings. | Eric Gay/AP

AUSTIN, Texas — A recent ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed a floating barrier in the Rio Grande to remain in place temporarily. This decision reverses an earlier order that mandated the removal of the barrier, which consists of a series of linked, concrete-anchored buoys stretching roughly the length of three soccer fields. The barrier was installed between Eagle Pass, Texas, and Piedras Negras, Coahuila, in an area known for high levels of illegal border crossings.The Biden administration has challenged the legality of the barrier, arguing that it violates the federal Rivers and Harbor Act and poses significant humanitarian and environmental concerns. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, supported by conservative allies, argues that the state has the right to implement stringent border control measures to address illegal immigration. The broader lawsuit is scheduled for trial on August 6, where these issues will be further examined.Vanita Gupta, Associate Attorney General, criticized Texas for “flouting federal law” and potentially jeopardizing U.S. foreign policy. The Justice Department is also contesting Texas’ use of razor-wire fencing and restricted access to a border park, highlighting the broader conflict between state and federal authorities over immigration enforcement.The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications for state-federal relations and immigration policy in the United States.

Subscribe to our newsletter

COMMENTS