123 F.4th 186
5th Cir.2024Background
- Texas installed ~29 miles of concertina (c-wire) along the Rio Grande in the Eagle Pass/Maverick County area as a private-property deterrent to unlawful crossings; Border Patrol agents repeatedly cut or removed sections.
- Texas sued federal Defendants (DHS, CBP, Border Patrol and officials) asserting state-law trespass-to-chattels and conversion claims and APA/ultra vires claims, and sought a preliminary injunction to stop cutting the wire.
- The district court found the evidence showed Border Patrol cut the wire often without necessity (not for inspection, apprehension, or exigent medical need) and that the Winter factors otherwise favored Texas, but denied an injunction on sovereign-immunity grounds.
- A Fifth Circuit motions panel granted an injunction pending appeal; the Supreme Court vacated that injunction (5–4) after events involving Texas occupying Shelby Park and drownings were raised.
- The Fifth Circuit remanded for supplemental findings about Shelby Park; the district court found Texas’s park actions only briefly impeded access and were unrelated to the drownings. The Fifth Circuit now holds §702 waives sovereign immunity for Texas’s nonmonetary state-law claims and grants a preliminary injunction with a Shelby Park access modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Texas) | Defendant's Argument (U.S.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 5 U.S.C. §702 waives sovereign immunity for Texas’s state-law equitable claims | §702’s plain text waives immunity for any “action” seeking non‑monetary relief against agencies, including state tort claims | §702 only waives immunity for federal (APA) claims; state tort suits are not covered; FTCA displaces §702 | §702 waives sovereign immunity for nonmonetary state‑law equitable claims; FTCA does not implicitly bar §702 relief |
| Whether intergovernmental (Supremacy Clause) immunity bars Texas’s state‑law trespass suit | Texas acts as a proprietor protecting private property; suit does not regulate federal operations | Applying state tort law would impermissibly control federal law enforcement and regulate the U.S. directly | Intergovernmental immunity does not bar suit: Texas sues as proprietor to protect property and at most incidentally affects federal duties |
| Whether INA §1252(f)(1) bars injunctive relief against Border Patrol conduct | §1252(f)(1) bars injunctions against specified INA provisions only; Texas enjoins unauthorized property destruction not operation of listed INA provisions | The injunction would restrain operation of inspection/apprehension statutes (covered by §1252(f)(1)) and thus is barred | §1252(f)(1) does not bar this injunction because it targets unauthorized conduct under §1357(a)(3), not operation of the listed INA provisions; any effect on covered provisions would be collateral |
| Whether Winter factors support preliminary injunction (likelihood, irreparable harm, equities, public interest) | District court findings: likely success on state trespass claims; continuing unauthorized trespass causes irreparable harm; public interest favors enforcing law and property rights | Injunction would impede immigration enforcement, risk lives, and harm foreign relations | Winter factors satisfied: likely success (Defendants forfeited challenges to state-law merits), irreparable harm from continuing trespass, balance/public interest favor injunction (with Shelby Park access condition) |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity general principles)
- Dept. of Agric. v. Kirtz, 601 U.S. 42 (2024) (clear‑statement rule for waiver of sovereign immunity)
- Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U.S. 543 (2022) (limits on injunctions under INA §1252(f)(1))
- United States v. Washington, 596 U.S. 832 (2022) (intergovernmental‑immunity framework)
- Leslie Miller, Inc. v. Arkansas, 352 U.S. 187 (1956) (state law cannot give state a "virtual power of review" over federal contractors/operations)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (final agency action test for APA review)
- DHS v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103 (2020) (limits on due process for recent unlawful entrants)