The feud between the Biden administration and Texas over the southern border has set the stage for one of the largest immigration disputes between the federal and state governments in more than a decade.

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott recently had authorities seize city-owned land along the southern border and arrest illegal immigrants for trespassing, a move the federal government has vocally opposed. The Biden administration then asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that it was overstepping Texas' authority, sparking the first legal battle since 2012 at the high court.

“Courts have traditionally held that states have a limited role in enforcing immigration laws. We'll have to wait and see what the ruling is,'' Stephen W. Yale Rohr, a professor of immigration law practice at Cornell University, said in an interview with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled: case The case, known as Arizona v. United States, held that states could not enforce immigration laws because the states took matters into their own hands. (Related: Blue state court releases illegal immigrant accused of rape of disabled person)

Texas' takeover of Shelby Park in Eagle Pass led to the Biden administration's Department of Homeland Security (DHS). saying Texas blocked the Border Patrol from responding to the January 13 drowning of a migrant mother and her two children in the Rio Grande.

It was later determined that federal authorities notified the state of Texas after the drowning occurred, according to documents filed Jan. 15 by the Department of Justice. supreme court. (Related: Exclusive: How Turkish smugglers use social media to help 'nationals of all countries' reach the US border)

The Biden administration and Texas also exchanged views on whether the state has the right to install razor wire along its southern border, whether state authorities can arrest people entering the country illegally, and whether Mr. Abbott can. Ta. buoy It was installed on the Rio Grande.

Abbott, Yale-Lohr and University of South Texas, given that the makeup of the high court has changed since the Arizona case, in which the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in favor of the federal government. There may be some hope for this. Josh Blackman, professor of law, told DCNF.

“The problem is we have three different justices on the Supreme Court. We have three different justices on the court, and the current Supreme Court ruling is the same in the Arizona case, and Texas has a more conservative judge. I think they're hoping that if they go to the Supreme Court now, they might get a different result than they did in Arizona,” Yale Lohr said.

Although the Arizona case is a victory for the federal government, questions remain about whether the state has authority over border crimes, Blackmun said.

“Although the Arizona case was more or less a victory for the federal government, there were certain issues in Justice Kennedy's opinion that were not for us to decide, and one of the issues that we did not decide was that the states should actually The question was, in part, whether a person could be sentenced for a crime that violates federal law. In other words, entering the country illegally is a national crime. The court said we don't define it now,” Blackmun said.

“I'm pretty confident that if the same issue were to come up in this current courtroom today, it wouldn't have the same outcome. Back in 2012, Justice Kennedy was a floating vote. This theory puts Texas squarely in its place. I don't think it precludes them from doing so.'' I think there's still some wiggle room, and the courts may chart a different path,'' Blackmun said.

All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.