Last night, the Supreme Court, in a controversial 5-4 decision, again flexed its muscles on its shadow docket whereby the Court decided on the matter of Department of Homeland Security v. Texas with neither an oral argument nor a detailed written opinion. This controversial decision revolved around federal law enforcement’s right to execute their duties, which had been impeded by the state of Texas through their use of razor wire to restrict federal officials.
The ruling is rooted in the US Constitution’s Supremacy Clause which asserts that federal law “shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.” Given the eight-decade-old precedent that “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution,” it seemed the case against Texas should have been a clear victory for the federal government. However, this was not the case.
Rather than the unanimous decision one might expect from such a clear constitutional guiding principle, the Court was split with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett aligning with the three liberal justices to form the majority. The deep split reveals a disturbing disregard for the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, putting political and ideological interests above established doctrine and even the explicit text of the Constitution.
This becomes even more consequential as it emboldens politicians such as Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who, displeased with the narrow loss, openly defied the Court’s order. His recent tweet underscores the troublesome potential of such discord against a firmly established law.
The danger in the justices disregarding the clear directive in the Constitution is evident, raising concerns about institutional stability and the potential for escalating political conflict. As rightly pointed out earlier, “When things are, you know, testy, a unified Court (especially on such a gimmie issue) speaks volumes.”
The outcome of this dispute exemplifies how the right wing of the Supreme Court is engaging itself in a dangerous game, choosing to push their political agenda at the expense of the Constitution’s text and long-established doctrine. This decision, along with its potential implications, should force us to critically examine the actions of the modern Court and the future of law enforcement and constitutional interpretation.