The courts have gone back and forth and back again on the Texas immigration law, SB4. The law gives Texas the power to secure the border and deport illegal immigrants to Mexico as the federal government fails to do so. But after the Supreme Court allowed the law to remain in effect while the Biden administration challenges it, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to stop it. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joins Glenn with his reaction: “I’ve never seen anything like it. I don’t understand it. It’s bizarre.” Paxton also accuses the 5th Circuit of helping and protecting the cartels with this order.
TranscriptBelow is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Ken, the attorney general from the great state of Texas. How are you, sir?
KEN: I'm doing well. Pretty crazy stuff going on right now, as usual.
GLENN: Yeah. I know. Thank you for joining us.
I know you're getting ready for your argument with the appellate court today. Can you tell me what happened?
Yesterday, the Supreme Court said, Texas can begin arresting. And I get up this morning, and the appellate court said, no. No. No.
Not so fast.
KEN: Well, this is one of the more confusing and inexplicable things I've experienced in the court. It started out with the district court with the Biden administration and a little group called the ACLU sued us saying that the floor was unconstitutional.
We didn't the right to expel anybody from the country, no matter how bad they were. So the judge, with where they filed a lawsuit, put an injunction on our law.
So it couldn't go into effect March 4th the date it was supposed to go into effect.
We appealed that. The three-judge panel ruled in our favor. We got the stay lifted.
But they put what they called an administrative stay on it, give the Supreme Court a chance to review it.
It goes up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says, no fine. Six-zero. It can go into effect. So we're good. We're happy. Within hours, we're notified by a new panel of the Supreme Court, Priscilla Owen, I think a Bush appointee. And then we have a liberal judge, appointed by one of the Democrats. And we had Andy Holden (phonetic) who ruled in our favor. So we lost two-one. They put another stay back in. Then they ordered us to have a -- a hearing, within less than 12 hours from finding out.
So, actually, my guy is arguing by Zoom right now, if the court in New Orleans, that three-judge panel, that really odd argument. Because they removed the stay. But they said, that's what the argument is about.
It's almost like they've already decided. They still want to us argue the case.
I don't know. I've never seen it. And I don't understand it. It's bizarre.
GLENN: Why?
Yeah. I was talking to Mike Lee today. And he said, you know, stays are usually to stay from harm. What we have going on here, is a whole lot of harm.
We have crime. We have killers. We have just -- just an invasion of our border. And it should be that the court should say. No. No. No.
Let them arrest, until they look at everything.
Instead, the harm that is being perceived, I guess, by this court. Is to the illegal alien.
MIKE: Yes, to the illegal alien, and to the Biden administration's partnership with cartels. That's the harm. We are harming the cartel relationship. And that's -- I don't know how else to put it. If the court defends this. If they block us from enforcing legitimate half law by the legislature, not by the governor.
Then they are saying, we want to protect any harm that might come to the illegal immigrants and to the Biden administration's work with the cartels. That's the reality where we're at now.
GLENN: So what is your guy arguing?
I wish we could listen in. What's he --
MIKE: He's arguing exactly what you are saying. There's no harm. Let the law stay in effect. The arguments of the case. And you let us have the opportunity to uphold and defend, a purposefully enacted law bit Texas legislature. The people.
GLENN: So when is -- when are they going to -- when is this going to be decided? I mean, I know the stay is for the trial.
I guess they would announce something within a couple of days, on the stay. What about the full case?
MIKE: I mean, they've already removed the stay. So the administrative stay of the stay.
So confusing.
Because there was a -- you know, a stay in place. Then they had the administrative stay as the stay.
That's why it was so hard to explain. What they will do, I think they will rule very quickly. Look how fast they went.
The Supreme Court gave us the victory yesterday afternoon, and by, you know, within an hour or two, the Fifth Circuit, Priscilla and others said no. You can't -- this law can't stay in effect.
We'll let the state go back into effect. The original judge put into place.
Then you have to argue it tomorrow at ten in the morning, which I've never had an argument turn around that fast, on something so insignificant. Even on something minor. That's what is so strange about this.
That's part of it. The circuit would sort of step past the Supreme Court. Well, we'll think about this going into effect.
It's despite the fact, that exactly what you said, the harm is defective. There is no harm to this. I mean, I will acknowledge harm to the cartels. I will acknowledge they are being harmed.
It's true. We are harming the cartel.
GLENN: Right. Harm to the drug industry. Harm to the fentanyl pushers.
Harm to the drug traffickers. The human traffickers.
Yeah. So, yes. Yes.
Venezuela.
MIKE: In public, in court, anywhere.
We are arming them.
GLENN: Yes.
So that was the other question. And you just touched on it.
How does a lower court usurp the Supreme Court?
MIKE: So they basically. The Supreme Court, to put it back to the fifth circuit, and said, we're not -- we're not going to -- undo the administrative state of the stay.
So they left our -- our law in place.
That the fifth circuit still has control of the case right now. Because it's back down to them.
And they can rule however they want. And they can protect if they want to protect the cartels. They can protect the cartels.
It's within their power to do that.
GLENN: Another thing that happened over night.
And this is the first thing I was worried about.
I saw this late last night.
And then I saw, oh, well, we don't have to worry about that. As much as we do. Maybe people inside our own country.
The president of Mexico said, Texas isn't going to return anybody to the border of Mexico. Or fly them into Mexico.
Which made me think of the 18,000 people that we finally got out of Afghanistan. We were thwarted by the Department of State every day, all the time. Several times a day.
We had a plane with refugees, in the air.
And we had a place to land. Another country, had already okayed it. And the State Department called and said, we can't vouch for that plane.
So I wouldn't allow it to land.
And they -- they stopped us from flying any place.
Can the -- can the governments do that? To Texas?
MIKE: It seems wrong to me.
We also have this case in the Supreme Court, this knocked out our -- being an injunction for the Fifth Circuit. To stop the 30,000 people they're flying in. Flying in! From Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela. Flying in, so 30,000 a month, are being flown in.
We're paying for it. The country is paying for this. The Biden administration is paying for this. It's completely illegal. And we had an injunction to stop it.
The Supreme Court just a week ago, got rid of our own injunction. So now the 30,000 people don't even -- we're paying for them to come to the country illegally.
I can't make this stuff up.
GLENN: Yeah. I don't know.
I'm trying to figure out the distinction between injunction and a stay, what the difference is there, but.
MIKE: I'm sorry. It's language that they use.
But basically, we had a junction stopping the Biden administration from importing 30,000 people a month from those four countries. The four I mentioned. And the Supreme Court, six to three, said no. The injunction goes away. Go back and litigate this case.
Here we are, we now have 30,000 people a month. And we can't stop it. So it will take -- who knows how long? Every month, 30 thousands of individuals more. We're paying for this. Are going all over the country, from those four countries I've mentioned. And on top of that. Now Texas has an injunction, stopping us from enforcing our own laws. Protecting our state from illegal immigration.
It's very frustrating.
It seems like, even when we get rulings that allow us to go back to court. There are the rulings that allow it to take years. And so you will buy another 300,000 people fly across the border. They won't even go to the Border Patrol anymore. They just fly in.
GLENN: Ken, I am sure you know this. Because you live in Texas as well.
You know, there's an old saying, don't mess with Texas.
And, you know, fortunately, or unfortunately, whichever way you want to look at it, a lot of Texans mean that.
And a lot of Texans are seeing this as an invasion. And they're seeing this out of control government. You know, doing exactly what you just said.
And destroying us. Intentionally poisoning us.
And there's a lot of Texans that I think are, you know, kind of up to here. How do we -- how do we diffuse this, this back and forth?
How do we diffuse it, just so it doesn't get to a boiling point. That you can't turn down.
Look, all we can do. I have lawyers. People all the time say, why don't you do more?
The legislature gives me lawyers. They don't give me anything else. I go where I can fight.
I think eventually, if you have such disdain -- if the federal government has such disdain for the law and the Constitution, then eventually the people have a right to say, no, we're not putting up with this anymore.
And the Declaration of Independence, is clear on that. These rights are inalienable. They're from God. They're not from Joe Biden and not from Donald Trump. They are inalienable.
And we have a right to those rights. And eventually, the people have to find a way to overcome that. And what that is, I don't know.
Hopefully, the next election will speak to that.
And those rights will start being honored as fundamental rights to human beings.
GLENN: That is one of the most amazing statements I think I've ever heard from a government official.
I -- I hope we -- I hope the next election with you, I hope the next election solves these things.
Because we're in constitutional crisis, after constitutional crisis.
And it's got to stop.
KEN: We are on our way. And if we're not there now. We don't have a constitutional republic. If the rule of law, the Constitution can be put aside, set aside, and flip to mean anything, that a few justices think it means.
And they can dishonor fundamental rights, that were guaranteed in our Constitution, then now we're back to the Declaration of Independence. And that is a big place to be. As you know.
GLENN: Yeah. Ken Paxton.
God bless you. Thank you. We'll pray for your win today.
God bless. The attorney general of the great state of Texas.
Why do I feel like history, we just lived history.