Terrible Cruel Greg Abbott Smacked back in Courts re: Buoys and Razor Wire on border

Greg Abbott is a hateful person who, presumably simply for power, has put buoys in the Rio Grande and also razor wire on the borders, including not just the border between Texas and Mexico but the border between Texas and New Mexico.

Federal court upholds order for Texas to remove buoys along Rio Grande in major loss for Gov. Abbott

Besides the fact that the buoys originally were on Mexico’s side of the river, AND that migrants were being injured or killed, it was NOT HIS JOB but the federal government, who is actually in charge of border security. Power mad Abbott decided to just up and do it and now have been told by the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the buoys. Now, you just now he, along with kook Ken Paxton are going to appeal, but I’m glad to see even an outlier court like the 5th thinks Abbott is wrong.

Here is the decision with parts excerpted below

In July 2023, Texas, at the direction of Governor Greg Abbott,
installed a floating barrier in the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass, Texas. The
United States filed a civil enforcement action against Texas, alleging that
installment of the barrier violated the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act
of 1899 (“RHA”). The United States moved for a preliminary injunction,
which the district court granted, ordering the defendants to cease work on
the barrier and to move it to the Texas riverbank. Texas timely appealed.
This court entered an administrative stay. Finding that the district court did

not abuse its discretion, we DISSOLVE the administrative stay and
AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
In early June 2023, Governor Abbott announced Texas’s intent to
deploy “marine floating barriers” to “mak[e] it more difficult to cross the
Rio Grande and reach the Texas side of the southern border.”1 On July 10,
2023, without authorization from the federal government, Texas began
installing the floating barrier.
The floating barrier was deployed near Eagle Pass, Texas, with
additional plans by Texas to deploy similar barriers at three different
locations in the area. The floating barrier is roughly 1,000 feet long, made up
of large four-foot orange buoys fastened together with heavy metal cables and
anchored in place with concrete blocks placed systematically on the floor of
the Rio Grande. The buoys are surrounded by 68 anchors weighing about
3,000 pounds each and 75 anchors weighing about 1,000 pounds each.
Attached to about 500 feet of the floating barrier is a stainless-steel mesh
“anti-dive net” extending two feet into the water. The following
photographs are illustrative:

On July 24, 2023, the United States brought a civil enforcement action
under Sections 12 and 17 of the RHA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 406, 413, seeking to enjoin
the building of structures in navigable waters that obstruct the navigable
capacity of those waters and to require Governor Abbott to remove all
structures and obstructions in the Rio Grande. Specifically, the United
States alleged that Texas violated Section 10 of the RHA, 33 U.S.C. § 403,
by erecting a structure in the Rio Grande without authorization from the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) and creating an

obstruction to the navigable capacity of that waterway without affirmative
Congressional authorization.
On September 6, 2023, after holding a hearing on the motion for a
preliminary injunction filed by the United States, the district court concluded
that the United States showed a likelihood of success on the merits and that
the equities favored the granting of a preliminary injunction. It ordered
Texas to cease any work on the floating barrier and to reposition it on the
Texas side of the riverbank by September 15, 2023. This court
administratively stayed the district court’s order pending consideration by
this panel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) from an order
granting a preliminary injunction…..

Further, in the declaration of Joseph L. Shelnutt, the Regulatory
Project Manager in the Compliance and Enforcement Branch for the Corps,
he indicates that the “placement and tandem configuration of the buoys,
which allows them to move somewhat independently even though they are
connected, present a structural barrier to cross-river navigation and would
force a vessel to maneuver around the structure to avoid collision or
entanglement at this location.”
The district court also noted that the floating barrier is not simply a
string of buoys but is made even larger by the anchors placed four to six feet
on either side of the barrier: “Photographs show these grey concrete anchors
standing from the bed of the river, with no markings to identify them as
hazards. These concrete obstacles present a serious risk to watercraft of any

kind.” This is because the anchors are not easily seen by oncoming
watercraft but are at a level that would cause damage to a vessel of any size
that came upon them.
Texas’s own declarants state that the portion of the Rio Grande at
issue has many hazards, including “sand bars, shallow water, water with
inconsistent depths, small islands, large rocks, man-made debris, natural
debris such as logs and stumps, and sandy shoals” and that it is “very difficult
and dangerous” even for airboats to operate. As the district court found,
these conditions “make it even more imperative for anyone piloting down the
river to have free reign [sic] of the entire width and a clear view of all
obstacles.”
This evidence, coupled with the Supreme Court’s command to
interpret “obstruction” within Section 10 broadly, supports the district
court’s finding that the floating barrier is an obstruction to the navigable
capacity of the Rio Grande, and we find no clear error. Having made the
requisite showing that Texas is likely in violation of the first clause of Section
10 because its obstruction was not “affirmatively authorized by Congress,”
33 U.S.C. § 403, the United States has shown that it is likely to succeed on
the merits of its first claim….

The district court, in finding that the public interest favored the
United States, emphasized Supreme Court decisions. In Sanitary District of
Chicago v. United States, 266 U.S. 405 (1925), the Supreme Court stated:
“There is no question that this power [to remove obstructions to interstate
and foreign commerce] is superior to that of the States to provide for the
welfare or necessities of their inhabitants.” Id. at 426. More pointedly, in
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), the Supreme Court noted that
while Arizona “may have understandable frustrations with the problems
caused by illegal immigration,” as Texas has alleged, “the State may not
pursue policies that undermine federal law.” Id. at 416

Further, the district court emphasized that the “balance of priorities
Congress struck in the RHA” outweighed Texas’s asserted interests. Courts
may look at the statute at issue for guidance in determining whether the
issuance of a preliminary injunction would be in the public interest. See, e.g.,
Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 544 (1987)
(finding the public interest promoted by the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act was “to protect Alaskan subsistence resources from
unnecessary destruction,” rather than preventing the actions the plaintiff
sought to enjoin). Congress has spoken to the public interest through passage
of the RHA, and the Supreme Court has emphasized the same: “We are
dealing here with the sovereign powers of the Union, the Nation’s right that
its waterways be utilized for the interests of the commerce of the whole
country.” Appalachian Elec., 311 U.S. at 405.19
The district court relied on all the evidence discussed herein to find
that the balance of hardships tips in favor of the United States. It considered
the threat to navigation and federal government operations on the Rio
Grande,20 as well as the potential threat to human life the floating barrier

created. All of the district court’s findings of fact were well supported by the
record, and its conclusion that the equities favor issuance of a preliminary
injunction was not an abuse of discretion.

And

We also consider the danger to federal government operations, including those
of the Border Patrol, IBWC, and Coast Guard, to be particularly concerning. At this stage,
the showing is sufficient, and the United States can hardly be faulted for being unable to
produce even more evidence of the dangers the floating barrier poses. As noted in Captain
Justin Peters’s declaration, because Texas did not seek a permit by the Corps, the Coast
Guard has not been able to consider “the impact of the structure on the safety of navigation
as well as the traditional and possible uses of the waterway including possible impact on
future Coast Guard mission tasking,” as well as “the location of the structure in relation to
the navigable channel, navigational traffic patterns, difficulty of navigation in the vicinity
of the structure, the nature of maritime activity in the vicinity of the structure, the nature

of the structure, and the potential for the structure to move with tidal or weather
conditions.” In Shelnutt’s declaration, he indicates that the Corps “were unable to
determine, among other things, the exact methods of construction and whether the floating
barrier was sufficiently anchored to ensure it remained in place,” as well as “any overall
effects from the floating barrier on public safety, use of the Rio Grande in that area, and
other public interest factors.” Finally, “because no information was submitted for project
evaluation and potential permitting, it is unknown if the structure meets engineering
standards to withstand predicted high flows. Should segments of the structure, or the
entire structure, become unmoored from its location and travel downstream, further risks
to navigation and safety could reasonably be assumed.” This is particularly troubling
considering the August 15, 2023, declaration of the United States showing that nearly 80
percent of the floating barrier had drifted out of alignment and into Mexican waters. The
ambiguity and concerns surrounding the impact of the floating barrier, which have not been
properly evaluated by relevant agencies because of Texas’s unilateral action, support the
grant of a preliminary injunction.

And about the razor wire

A federal judge on Wednesday denied Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s request to stop Border Patrol agents from cutting concertina wire the state has laid out on the banks of the Rio Grande to stop migrants from crossing the border illegally.

In her order, U.S. District Judge Alia Moses of Del Rio said Texas didn’t provide enough evidence to show the federal government has violated the law — but she criticized Border Patrol agents’ behavior and the federal government’s immigration policy in general. She added that while she is ruling in favor of the Biden administration, it doesn’t mean Paxton’s office can’t later provide more evidence that the federal government has violated the law.