1 00:00:01,900 --> 00:00:04,533 AMNA NAWAZ: A standoff between federal Border Patrol and Texas state officials 2 00:00:04,533 --> 00:00:09,533 is intensifying following a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Biden administration. 3 00:00:10,366 --> 00:00:12,433 Laura Barron-Lopez has more. 4 00:00:12,433 --> 00:00:15,500 LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Earlier this week, the Supreme Court said U.S. Border Patrol agents 5 00:00:15,500 --> 00:00:20,200 could remove razor wire that the state put in place along the Rio Grande River. 6 00:00:20,200 --> 00:00:24,233 The Homeland Security Department is demanding immediate access to a section 7 00:00:24,233 --> 00:00:29,100 of the border and being blocked with razor wire and fencing. But Texas Governor Greg Abbott is 8 00:00:29,100 --> 00:00:34,100 doubling down, blocking the agents from entering the area and saying Texas constitutional authority 9 00:00:36,433 --> 00:00:40,933 is -- quote -- "the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary." 10 00:00:42,500 --> 00:00:45,100 Joining me to discuss this further is Stephen Vladeck, 11 00:00:45,100 --> 00:00:48,333 a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. 12 00:00:48,333 --> 00:00:50,766 Professor Vladeck, thanks so much for joining. 13 00:00:50,766 --> 00:00:55,733 Republican Governor Abbott is saying Texas is going to hold the line. And it's unclear when 14 00:00:58,000 --> 00:01:00,800 or if this razor wire is going to be removed. Who ultimately has the authority over the border here? 15 00:01:03,166 --> 00:01:04,900 STEPHEN VLADECK, University of Texas School of Law: Yes, I mean, I think it's pretty clear, 16 00:01:04,900 --> 00:01:08,666 under the Constitution, under our precedents, that immigration policy, 17 00:01:08,666 --> 00:01:12,833 control of the border really is ultimately in the federal government's purview. 18 00:01:12,833 --> 00:01:15,533 But, Laura, I think it's just as clear that Governor Abbott wants 19 00:01:15,533 --> 00:01:18,666 this confrontation and that he's willing to take this battle all 20 00:01:18,666 --> 00:01:22,233 the way back to the Supreme Court before he's going to stand down. 21 00:01:22,233 --> 00:01:25,500 LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And Governor Abbott is claiming that he has this authority under 22 00:01:25,500 --> 00:01:30,500 the U.S. Constitution because the federal government isn't protecting Texas against 23 00:01:31,966 --> 00:01:33,666 a -- quote -- "invasion." That's the way he's been describing it. 24 00:01:33,666 --> 00:01:37,766 Is this a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution? 25 00:01:37,766 --> 00:01:40,200 STEVE VLADECK: No, and in two different respects. 26 00:01:40,200 --> 00:01:44,300 I mean, the first is that, obviously, an influx of asylum seekers, however many we're talking about, 27 00:01:46,300 --> 00:01:48,633 is not what the founders had in mind when they used the word invasion. But, Laura, 28 00:01:48,633 --> 00:01:53,533 second, even if you're not persuaded by that, the clause Governor Abbott's relying on in Article 1, 29 00:01:53,533 --> 00:01:58,500 Section 10 of the Constitution was dealing with the specific scenario of the ability 30 00:02:00,600 --> 00:02:03,700 of states to respond to invasions until federal authorities were able to respond. 31 00:02:05,900 --> 00:02:08,833 This is the time in American history when the federal military was small. It was very spread 32 00:02:08,833 --> 00:02:13,833 out. It took weeks to travel. Congress was usually out of session. There's no support in our history, 33 00:02:15,700 --> 00:02:18,433 there's no support in founding or other materials for the idea that states can 34 00:02:18,433 --> 00:02:23,433 decide for themselves that they're under invasion, and, even if the federal government disagrees, 35 00:02:25,066 --> 00:02:27,033 that somehow it's the state's determination that would control. 36 00:02:27,033 --> 00:02:30,866 LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Recently, three migrants drowned in the Rio Grande 37 00:02:30,866 --> 00:02:35,033 in this section that Border Patrol agents have been trying to access. 38 00:02:35,033 --> 00:02:40,033 And all this comes as a number of Republican governors still say that they support Texas, 39 00:02:41,500 --> 00:02:44,333 that they stand by Texas. What are the larger implications of 40 00:02:44,333 --> 00:02:47,966 this standoff between Texas and the federal government? 41 00:02:47,966 --> 00:02:50,033 STEVE VLADECK: I mean, the larger implications are pretty staggering. 42 00:02:50,033 --> 00:02:54,666 It's not just the specter of a physical confrontation between federal and Texas 43 00:02:54,666 --> 00:02:59,633 officials along the border in Eagle Pass. It's also basically a relegation of a debate that we 44 00:03:02,033 --> 00:03:05,400 had in American law for the first 70 years of this country about the ability of states to effectively 45 00:03:07,466 --> 00:03:11,033 nullify those federal laws that they disagreed with, that they thought were unconstitutional. 46 00:03:13,066 --> 00:03:16,033 For better or for worse in our constitutional system, federal law supersedes state law, 47 00:03:16,033 --> 00:03:20,066 even when we don't like how the federal government is or is not enforcing those 48 00:03:20,066 --> 00:03:24,133 federal laws. The remedies for those disagreements are not to 49 00:03:24,133 --> 00:03:27,800 allow every state to go out on their own and to have their own policies. 50 00:03:27,800 --> 00:03:31,533 The remedies, if you really have a problem with the policies, is to change the people 51 00:03:31,533 --> 00:03:35,833 who are making them. Otherwise, it's a federal system, Laura, in name only. 52 00:03:35,833 --> 00:03:38,833 LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And Governor Abbott also claims that the federal government 53 00:03:38,833 --> 00:03:42,633 has -- quote -- "broken the compact with states." 54 00:03:44,400 --> 00:03:47,133 Where have -- what do you think he means by that? And have states in the 55 00:03:47,133 --> 00:03:52,133 past used that language to justify defying the federal government? 56 00:03:54,300 --> 00:03:57,933 STEVE VLADECK: Yes, I mean, the compact theory of the Constitution is a pretty outlier view, 57 00:03:59,433 --> 00:04:01,900 especially these days, about the way the Constitution was formed. 58 00:04:01,900 --> 00:04:06,666 The basic premise is that the federal government, the constitutional system we have was formed by 59 00:04:06,666 --> 00:04:11,233 the states, and, therefore, the states can control its terms. That was the argument 60 00:04:11,233 --> 00:04:16,100 on which the Southern states predicated secession and helped to precipitate the 61 00:04:16,100 --> 00:04:20,533 Civil War. There's a reason why we tend not to hear that much of it these days. 62 00:04:20,533 --> 00:04:24,033 Again, I mean, I think there's a lot of folks who are going to have strong views about whether 63 00:04:24,033 --> 00:04:28,833 the Biden administration is or isn't doing what's best for the country at the border. 64 00:04:28,833 --> 00:04:32,800 But the way to air those disagreements is through the federal electoral process. 65 00:04:32,800 --> 00:04:37,333 In a world in which states can follow this version of the compact theory as 66 00:04:37,333 --> 00:04:42,333 a justification for interfering with federal authority, what's to stop California from doing 67 00:04:44,500 --> 00:04:47,300 that to the next Republican president? What's to stop Vermont from doing that to the next 68 00:04:47,300 --> 00:04:51,400 Republican president? And then we're talking about a system in which the states have all 69 00:04:51,400 --> 00:04:55,200 the power, and the federal government is basically impotent to do anything. 70 00:04:55,200 --> 00:04:59,933 LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Professor Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas, thank you for your time. 71 00:04:59,933 --> 00:05:00,700 STEVE VLADECK: Thank you.