Attorney General Ken Paxton Files Response with SCOTUS Opposing Biden Administration’s Effort to Resume Destruction of Texas Border Barriers

AUSTIN, TX -- Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a response to the Biden Administration’s request that the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) vacate a current injunction that protects Texas concertina wire barriers near the United States-Mexico border from being destroyed by federal agents.

In October 2023, Attorney General Paxton sued the Biden Administration for destroying concertina wire fencing that Texas had deployed to reduce the record-breaking influx of illegal immigration. Texas quickly secured an emergency restraining order from a federal judge that ordered federal agents to cease doing so. Although the federal judge found the Administration’s actions likely unlawful, she declined to grant the State’s requested relief. Attorney General Paxton successfully appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and quickly obtained an administrative stay and, subsequently, an injunction pending appeal to prevent the federal government from continuing its destruction of Texas property while the court considered the matter further.

In a bid to circumvent the typical appellate process, the Biden Administration requested SCOTUS immediately allow federal agents to resume destruction of the concertina wire barriers placed by Texas law enforcement. Attorney General Paxton has responded to the application, highlighting that the Fifth Circuit has already expedited the case and that the federal government is attempting to switch legal theories midstream.

The filing additionally explains: “Defendants seek emergency relief pending appeal without making any argument that they did not destroy Texas’s property, directly contrary to basic principles of Texas tort law. That maximalist view of federal authority is not new: At every stage of this litigation—in the district court, in the Fifth Circuit, and now in this Court—Defendants have claimed authority to destroy property that belongs to someone else based on their assurance that doing so is necessary to enforce federal immigration laws. Yet Defendants all but ignore the district court’s factual findings demonstrating that the premise of their argument is wrong: ‘The evidence presented … amply demonstrates the utter failure of the Defendants to deter, prevent, and halt unlawful entry into the United States.’”

To read the filing, click here.