[From “Can Texas Constitutionally Engage in War and Protect Itself From Imminent Danger?”]

This verdict temporarily permits Border Patrol agents to remove the razor wire that had been placed along the banks of the Rio Grande, pending the outcome of an ongoing lawsuit. The Biden administration’s argument hinges on the belief that the presence of this wire impedes Border Patrol agents from efficiently reaching migrants as they attempt to cross the river[…]
Before turning to the expected analysis of federalism, state sovereignty, and the so-called Supremacy Clause, let’s look a lesser-known, little spoken-of clause in the Constitution[…]
Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution preserves to the states the authority to “engage in war” if actually invaded or “in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay”

Given the number of “immigrants” and their age and gender (young adult, male), Governor Abbott and AG Paxton could make a very compelling argument that the conditions of invasion and imminent danger are clearly present along the southern border[…]
That is to say, even if one makes the argument that Texas is not being invaded, as that term would be understood by the Founders, there is still a very strong argument to be made that the state is in imminent danger[…]
The state’s decision to exclude federal agents from certain areas can be interpreted as an assertion of its right to manage its own law-enforcement resources and strategies. While the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution ensures that federal law generally takes precedence over state law, it does not grant the federal government an unlimited mandate to intervene in state-controlled areas[…]
As for this so-called Supremacy Clause[…]
If the Founders had intended to include Supreme Court opinions in the list of those things making up the “supreme law of the land,” then they would have done so. They didn’t, therefore they aren’t