This week, the Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration in an immigration decision that enables federal agents to remove a harsh border protection implemented in Texas. While conservatives were initially enraged at the ruling, they soon found a silver lining: A path forward to ending sanctuary cities in the U.S.
On Monday evening, SCOTUS released a one-page decision granting the President Joe Biden administration’s request to remove razor wire on the Texas-Mexico border that was used to keep out migrants.
The wire had been authorized by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) in response to the influx of migrants at the southern border, which has seen a surge of migrants in greater numbers than ever before.
The wire was implemented in September 2023, but federal agents began cutting parts of it in October. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton then sued the Biden administration, and a federal appeals court ruled that federal agents must stop cutting the wire while the issue was being deliberated in court. In turn, Biden asked SCOTUS to nullify the court of appeals order so that the cutting of border wire could continue.
After the SCOTUS decision was made public, Abbott tweeted that he will continue to “defend Texas’ constitutional authority to secure the border and prevent the Biden Admin from destroying [its] property.”
Abbott wasn’t alone in his outrage. Right-wing politicians and figures directed their ire toward Biden with regards to SCOTUS’s decision—but the fact that the Court already leans conservative didn’t help them stomach the ruling.
“The Supreme Court is siding with the Biden administration against Texas by allowing the federal government to take down razor wire on the border,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) tweeted. “What an upside down world.”
“Biden should be impeached for treason,” conservative commentator Tomi Lahren tweeted. “For allowing our southern border to be a free-for-all!!!”
In the aftermath of the decision though, some Republicans saw the bright side: The precedent established in the court ruling Monday night could allow a potential future Republican administration to enforce federal border patrol politics over sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities, like Los Angeles, New York City, or Chicago, don’t cooperate with federal immigration laws to the fullest extent—though there is no one unifying policy that all sanctuary cities adopt.
There are also 12 sanctuary states, including Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington, that don’t disclose the immigration status of individuals to immigration authorities and limit the amount of time immigrants can be detained by Border Patrol, among other policies.
“The logic of the 5-4 SCOTUS decision was based on the Constitutionality of the Federal Government being the ones to govern and administer Immigration Policy, correct?” conservative X user Steve Williams tweeted. “Then Sanctuary Cities should have no argument, or present any interference, when Trump starts mass deportations.”
Trump promised in a recent Fox News town hall to enact the “largest deportation effort in the history of our country” if elected—and said he predicts sanctuary cities will fall.
“Then the SCOTUS will agree with Trump January 2025 when he deports from every city and state in this country. Sanctuary will have no bearing on the power of the President,” Trump supporter Fawn Stoner tweeted. “Buckle up blue states.”
