The long-awaited trial over the placement of lethal saws, razor wire and netting in the Rio Grande Valley was scheduled to begin Tuesday. A last-minute decision announced Monday postponed the trial until November at the earliest, after our presidential election.
We trust that the delay was not made in order to see who will win that election — Donald Trump, who supports the barriers, or Kamala Harris, who we assume opposes them. The law is the law, regardless of who’s in the White House.
The court’s adjudication of the case should be based solely on the law and whether or not the state of Texas has the authority to place the obstructions within the federally controlled international boundary. And given the contrasting rulings, and the lethal nature of the barrier, the case should be heard sooner rather than later.
Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the installation of the obstruction, secured by strings of buoys, in June 2023 as part of his crackdown on illegal immigration. The federal government demanded that the buoys be removed and then filed its lawsuit after Abbott refused. The fate of the chain has been at issue over the past year, with courts alternately ruling that they must be removed or that they don’t have to. The most recent ruling came last week when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the buoys can stay — reversing a previous ruling by a smaller panel of its own judges who had ordered them removed in December 2023.
The immediate issue for the federal court to decide is the question of whether the Rio Grande — or at least the 1,000-foot section between Eagle Pass, Texas, and Piedras Negras, Mexico where buoys are hung — is navigable. The lawsuit claims the barrier violates the federal Rivers and Harbors Act by obstructing navigable waters. Last week’s ruling allowing the chain to remain noted that it “is not within navigable water.”
Historically, the river was navigable and ships moved people and cargo up and down its waters. Over the past 70 years, however, two dams have been built across the river and currently, drought conditions have lowered the river level to the point that people can wade through it at some points.
The lawsuit also asserts that the federal government controls our international boundaries and that the state placed the obstruction without seeking permission and in violation of international treaties. It also raises humanitarian and environmental concerns.
Those concerns are valid; several bodies have been found entangled in the razor wire and netting, including a 3-year-old girl, and Mexico has issued formal complaints about the buoys’ placement.
It’s the lethal nature of the chain that upsets most opponents, and that needs to be addressed. An argument certainly can be made that if such an obstruction can be placed on the river at all, it needn’t be designed to entangle and shred the bodies of those who get caught in it.
That’s also a reason why the court should hear the case as soon as possible. As long as the injurious elements of the barrier remain, lives remain at risk. There’s no telling how many more people might die as a result of the court’s delay in bringing the case to trial.
AIM Media Texas