The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Texas border dispute came in two emergency orders in 2024, not a full constitutional decision. In January 2024, a 5-4 order let federal Border Patrol agents resume cutting the concertina wire Texas had strung along the Rio Grande. In March 2024, a separate order briefly allowed Texas to enforce Senate Bill 4, a new state law criminalizing unauthorized border crossings. Both were procedural moves on emergency applications. Neither answered whether a state can run its own border enforcement, and that question is still open in 2026.
The January 2024 Razor Wire Order
Texas had installed miles of concertina wire along the banks of the Rio Grande, including a 2.5-mile stretch near Eagle Pass. Federal Border Patrol agents began cutting and moving sections of it, arguing they needed access to the riverbank to patrol, apprehend people who had already crossed, and provide emergency medical aid. Texas sued. The Fifth Circuit issued an injunction stopping federal agents from cutting the wire except in medical emergencies.
On January 22, 2024, the Supreme Court vacated that injunction in an unsigned 5-4 order. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett joined Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson in the majority. Four justices dissented without a published opinion.1Cornell Law School / Legal Information Institute. United States v Texas The order restored the federal government’s ability to remove the wire while the underlying lawsuit continued. It did not decide who ultimately wins that lawsuit.
The distinction matters. An emergency order on a stay application asks a narrow question about what should happen while a case is litigated, not whether the state or the federal government is right on the merits. The dissent count signaled how divided the Court is on the deeper question.
The March 2024 SB 4 Order
The second order involved Texas Senate Bill 4, a state law creating criminal penalties for entering Texas from a foreign country outside an official port of entry. A federal district court had blocked the law. The Fifth Circuit then issued an administrative stay that briefly allowed SB 4 to take effect. The Supreme Court, responding to an emergency application, denied requests to vacate that stay and let the Fifth Circuit process continue.1Cornell Law School / Legal Information Institute. United States v Texas
The practical effect was that SB 4 could theoretically be enforced. Within hours, though, a Fifth Circuit panel reinstated the block while it considered the merits. As with the wire order, the Supreme Court did not rule on whether SB 4 is constitutional. It only declined to disturb the Fifth Circuit’s procedural handling of the case.
What SB 4 Actually Does
SB 4 was passed during the 88th Texas Legislature’s fourth called session in late 2023. It creates new state crimes for entering Texas from a foreign country outside an official port of entry and for reentering after a previous removal or deportation order. Penalties range from a Class B misdemeanor for a first offense up to a second-degree felony carrying two to twenty years in prison for reentry after a prior felony conviction or for refusing a judicial return order.2Texas Legislature Online. House Research Organization Bill Analysis – SB 4
The law also empowers Texas judges to issue orders requiring individuals to return to Mexico, giving the state its own deportation-style mechanism. It is modeled on federal immigration statutes but administered entirely through Texas state courts. That parallel structure is what makes it constitutionally vulnerable, and it is the reason litigation has followed the law since the day it passed.
The Constitutional Question the Court Has Not Answered
Texas grounds its position in Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which says no state may “engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton have repeatedly described unauthorized crossings as an invasion, arguing that framing triggers the state’s right to defend itself independently of the federal government.
Every federal court to directly address the question has rejected that reading. Courts have interpreted the invasion clause as referring to armed hostility from a foreign government or military force, not civilian migration. That precedent runs through multiple circuits back to the 1990s and was reaffirmed by the district court that first blocked SB 4.
The federal government’s position rests on the Supremacy Clause and on Arizona v. United States, the 2012 Supreme Court decision that is the controlling precedent here. In Arizona, the Court struck down three provisions of that state’s SB 1070, holding that the federal government has “broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status” and that states cannot create their own criminal penalties or enforcement systems where Congress has built a comprehensive federal framework.3Cornell Law School / Legal Information Institute. Arizona v United States
Specifically, Arizona could not criminalize failure to carry federal registration documents, could not criminalize unauthorized employment where Congress had chosen civil penalties, and could not authorize state officers to make warrantless arrests of suspected removable immigrants.3Cornell Law School / Legal Information Institute. Arizona v United States SB 4 runs directly into the same preemption problems.
What Changed in 2025
The legal landscape shifted twice after the emergency orders. First, in November 2024, the Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court in the wire case and granted Texas a limited preliminary injunction against the federal government. That was a merits win for Texas, though it came just weeks before a change in presidential administrations reshaped the practical fight.
Second, in March 2025, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice voluntarily dismissed the federal government’s challenge to SB 4. The Biden administration had been the primary plaintiff arguing federal preemption. With the federal government stepping aside, the SB 4 case continues only because El Paso County and immigrant rights organizations remain as challengers. The razor wire conflict has effectively cooled for the same reason: the federal government is no longer cutting Texas’s wire, so the immediate dispute has evaporated even though the underlying legal question has not been resolved.
Where the Case Goes Next
SB 4 is the live legal issue heading into 2026. In January 2026, the full Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments en banc, with all 17 active judges considering the law’s constitutionality. Texas argued that SB 4 is a straightforward criminal statute supplementing federal enforcement. Challengers argued it violates the Supremacy Clause by creating a parallel state system that conflicts with federal laws on entry, asylum, and removal.
A ruling is expected within months, and it will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court regardless of which side wins. If the Fifth Circuit upholds SB 4, it will represent a significant break from Arizona v. United States and make Supreme Court review nearly certain. If the court strikes SB 4 down, Texas will appeal. Either path puts the merits question in front of the Justices, who deliberately avoided it in the 2024 emergency orders.
The wire question sits differently. No court has definitively ruled on whether a state can physically obstruct federal agents from accessing the border, and the current alignment between Washington and Austin has removed the immediate need to decide. That question will return the next time a federal administration wants to remove state-installed barriers, and the Supreme Court’s 2024 order will not settle it when that happens.
For now, then, the answer to what the Supreme Court has ruled is narrow and procedural. The federal government can cut the wire while litigation continues. SB 4’s fate rests with the Fifth Circuit and, eventually, with the Justices on a full merits record. The constitutional line between state and federal authority at the border has not yet been drawn.