The Constitutionality of Texas; Executive Orders Impacting the U.S.-Mexico Border

Abstract

Federalism, a principle central to the constitutional design, adopts the principle that both the national and state governments contain elements of sovereignty which the other is bound to respect. “From the existence of two sovereigns follows the possibility that laws can be in conflict or at cross-purposes.” The Supremacy Clause “provides a clear rule that federal law shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Under this principle, Congress may preempt state laws which interfere or conflict with federal laws. United States courts have held that issues of immigration, and as they relate to national security or border security, are clearly federal and that states are not to enact laws in conflict, or which interfere with federal immigration law or policies. Texas, a state sharing a border with Mexico, profoundly disagrees and has expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the federal government’s handling of the immigration issues and migrant surges at the Texas-Mexico border. Recently, a federal court relying on the Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. United States, held that a Texas law restricting the transportation of migrants conflicted with the federal government. In order to deal with Texas’ border situation, the Texas Governor issued a disaster declaration, and several states sent their own state law enforcement officers to assist Texas in its border operations. Though the outcomes of those legal challenges are still pending, this article analyzes the legality and possible outcomes of the actions of the states involved.

Keywords: International, border, constitutional, constitution, Mexico