I fully support the cause. This being said, I don't think Abbott cited the right legal framework to win in court.
(his statement):
https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/gov...on-texas-constitutional-right-to-self-defense
If these really are the best arguments, I would be surprised, but he's still right to push forward.
He cites two precedents. Arizona vs. United States (2012), and the CONUS Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3.
Neither of them truly support his actions.
1) He does not cite the actual ruling of Arizona vs. United States (2012), but rather merely a line in Justice Scalia's dissent opinion.
Scalia held a minority opinion.
2) None of the four provisions (one 1 of which SCOTUS upheld) dealt with setting up border enforcement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States#Supreme_Court_decision
3) CONUS defines a state's right to "engage in War" (the SIXTH mentioned) are not about immigration: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
This, of course, will have to go to SCOTUS. Although the text is talking about an actual invasion by troops of a foreign country, for example, a Texas port does not have to wait for a Presidential order to fight back against a fleet of English ships, I don't see how the present crisis applies, because the "engage in War" action is not what Texas is doing. The final condition also, "in such imminent danger", is a second condition by which the state my "engage in War".
4) Abbot says that his actions as governor relating to "self-defense" (not mentioned in the clause, but suggested under the actual term used "engage in War"), is based on HIS OWN prior declation of an invasion. The problem here is that states' governors do not possess the authority to declare invasions on their own. If the United States says it's not an invasion, are we to interpret state governors can override the POTUS and/or COTUS?
Regardless of the outcome, I support the actions, but these citations are pleading a case, not speaking of any settled laws. The first citation is irrelevant, unless SCOTUS was going to overturn Arizona vs. United States (2012). The second is a likely loss, but at least it buys time. In the meantime, we'll see what else happens.
Ultimately, if things get bad enough, Texas can use its own Constitution and also claim the Right of Secession. Article 1 Section 1 (Texas Constitition, my parentheticals):
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:
Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States
(have to try this first, which is what he's doing, but it may be a loss), and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
(this resolves the right of Texas to secede from the US formally, regardless)
What I think it does is buy time until the 2024 election, when hopefully another administration renders the action unnecessary. If it remains necessary after the election, then Texas is going to have to secede if they lose the case, or comply.
