Waco, TX – A federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that the state of Texas can keep the razor wire it installed along the U.S.-Mexico border near Eagle Pass, blocking the federal government from dismantling the controversial border barrier. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans issued a 2-1 decision reversing a previous ruling by a lower court, granting Texas a preliminary injunction against the federal government.
The razor wire, which spans more than 29 miles in the Eagle Pass area, was placed by Texas last year as part of a broader effort to deter illegal immigration. The wire installation led to a legal dispute after Border Patrol agents allegedly cut the wire to allow migrants to pass. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration, claiming that the federal government was illegally destroying state property by cutting the wire.
In a statement following the court’s decision, Paxton expressed strong support for the ruling, calling it a victory for Texas and the country. “It was shocking to me that the federal government would go out of their way to cut razor wire to allow illegals to cross when we’re just trying to protect our own land,” Paxton said. “This wasn’t their land. This was our land, our private property.”
Texas Governor Greg Abbott also celebrated the decision, tweeting that the state would continue to install more razor wire along the border, including in areas like Eagle Pass, where Texas has previously taken control of land such as Shelby Park, a municipal park that was seized against the city’s wishes.
The decision comes amid growing tensions over U.S. border policies and increasing immigration enforcement measures. While Texas continues to advocate for strict border control, the ruling faced criticism from activists, who argue that the use of razor wire is inhumane and a dangerous escalation of border enforcement tactics.
Amerika Garcia Grewal, an organizer with the Eagle Pass Border Coalition, condemned the ruling, calling the wire “a tool of war, not a humane border control measure.” She warned that the court’s decision could set a harmful precedent for using excessive force in border management. “The long-term implications of this decision are dire,” Garcia Grewal said. “It sets a dangerous precedent for using excessive force and disregarding human rights.”
The ruling also coincides with a diplomatic exchange between Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum and President-elect Donald Trump. Earlier this week, Trump had threatened to impose a 25% tariff on goods from Mexico unless the country took more action to prevent drug trafficking, particularly fentanyl, and curb illegal immigration. However, during a conversation on Wednesday, Sheinbaum reassured Trump that migrants traveling through Mexico were being “taken care of” and were not reaching the northern border. Trump described the conversation as “wonderful” and “productive,” claiming that Mexico had agreed to prevent migrants from reaching the U.S. southern border.
The back-and-forth over immigration policies highlights the growing friction between state and federal approaches to border security, with Texas pushing for a more aggressive stance and federal authorities seeking to balance enforcement with humanitarian concerns. As the legal battle continues, both sides are bracing for further developments in the ongoing struggle over the future of border security in the U.S.
