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.
ILYA SOMIN | 12.2.2023 1:29 PM

Yesterday, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled against
Texas in United States v. Abbott, a case where the federal government
is suing the state of Texas for installing floating buoy barriers in
the Rio Grande River to block migration and drug smuggling, creating
a safety hazard and possibly impeding navigation. The Biden
Administration claims this violates the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899. Texas argues otherwise, but but also cites one of the "invasion" provisions of the Constitution as justification for the state's
actions. Texas relies on Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the
Constitution, which provides, "[n]o state shall, without the Consent
of Congress, . . . engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such
imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Texas contends that
illegal migration and drug smuggling qualify as "invasion," and
therefore the Constitution gives the state the power to take military
action in response, even if doing so might violate a federal statute,
and even if there is no congressional authorization for war.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/02/fifth-circuit-rules-against-texas-in-case-where-state-claimed-immigration-and-drug-smuggling-qualify-as-invasion/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)