On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a lower court’s ruling compelling Texas to move a 1,000-foot floating barrier in the Rio Grande that was put in place to stop unauthorized border crossings. Court Overturns Order to Remove News in USA
When Texas was ordered to move the buoys from the river last summer, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas was deemed to have abused its discretion, according to the Fifth Circuit.
The barrier system may be temporarily kept in the river until a trial is conducted, according to Tuesday’s decision. Court Overturns Order to Remove News in USA
Following the installation of the buoys in the river in July 2023, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Texas, claiming that the barrier was illegal. Texas was ordered to relocate the barrier to the riverside by a preliminary injunction that the district court had already issued.
We maintain that the United States will probably be able to demonstrate that the barrier is located in a navigable portion of the Rio Grande, contrary to what the district court found, Willett wrote.
“We cannot reconcile the district court’s findings and conclusions with more than a century of precedent, which, when read fairly and faithfully, renders the evidence the district court relies upon inapplicable or unpersuasive.”Court Overturns Order to Remove News in USA
According to the appeals court, a preliminary injunction should not be granted unless the party making the request satisfies all four requirements: alignment with the public interest, the likelihood of irreparable harm, the balance of equities in favor of the party making the request, and the likelihood of success on the merits.
According to the appeals court, the district court “cannot cure the United States’ evidentiary deficiencies by creatively reinterpreting binding caselaw,” and the federal government has the “heavy burden” of proving probability of success.
The judgment noted, “We hold that the district court abused its discretion by granting the United States a preliminary injunction because we conclude that the United States fares no better on the three other preliminary-injunction factors.”
