Texas faces a constitutional clash with the Biden administration as the Supreme Court allows the federal government to cut razor fencing along the border.

Governor Greg Abbott claims the state’s right to self-defense against an “invasion” due to the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration laws.

Legal experts argue Texas can continue building the fence, emphasizing the state’s constitutional authority and the Supreme Court’s order.

Critics, including Gene Hamilton from America First Legal, condemn the Supreme Court’s decision, asserting it gave too much weight to federal concerns about the wire’s impact on immigration enforcement.

They argue that Texas, instead of hindering federal law enforcement, is aiding it by creating barriers that discourage illegal crossings.

“Unless and until a federal judge comes in and says, ‘You may not, State of Texas, put razor wire up along the border anymore,’ Texas should keep doing exactly what it needs to do. And, eventually, this turns into a game of will between the feds and the State of Texas,” Hamilton said, he told Fox News

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow, notes that the Supreme Court’s order only addressed the injunction on tearing down wire fencing on state property, allowing Texas to continue placing barriers. However, questions linger over Abbott’s Article 1 assertions, invoking the “invasion” clause, with von Spakovsky deeming it controversial and legally undetermined.

Experts suggest that the Supreme Court may revisit Justice Scalia’s theory that states possess inherent authority to control their borders.

They anticipate the court’s potential reconsideration of the role states play in addressing illegal immigration. The current ruling is deemed narrow, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear the case’s merits on February 7.