PATROL Act: DOJ Can't Sue States for Building Border Barriers

The "Preventing Aliens Through Rivers or Land Act," or PATROL Act, stops the U.S. Attorney General from taking legal action against states that put up barriers on their international borders. This means states can build walls, fences, or even floating buoys to prevent people from entering the country illegally and to 'protect the state's territory,' without the Department of Justice stepping in under Sections 9 or 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899.

Blocking the Feds

The core of the PATROL Act is to prevent the Department of Justice from suing states over border barrier construction. Normally, the federal government has significant authority over navigable waters and construction projects that could impact them (via the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899). This bill specifically carves out an exception, preventing the DOJ from using sections 9 and 10 of the 1899 Act to challenge a state's border barrier construction. For example, if a state decides to put up a wall that might partially block a river, the DOJ can't sue them based on those specific sections of the 1899 law, so long as the state claims the barriers are to prevent illegal crossings and protect their territory.

Real-World Ripple Effects

This law could have some serious, on-the-ground consequences. Think about it: a state could decide to put up barriers along a riverbank, potentially impacting water flow or wildlife. Normally, the federal government could step in, but this bill ties their hands, at least under certain legal avenues. The definition of 'barrier' is pretty broad, too – it's not just walls. It could be anything physical designed to secure the border. The law defines 'alien' and 'immigration laws' by referencing existing definitions in Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, ensuring those terms are used consistently.

Challenges on the Horizon

While the bill aims to give states more control over their borders, it opens up a can of worms. It might lead to clashes between state and federal laws, especially concerning environmental regulations. Could a state, under the guise of border security, build something that violates other federal environmental protections or even international agreements? The PATROL Act doesn't provide clear answers, which is a problem. It essentially prioritizes state-level border control actions over potentially conflicting federal regulations, which could lead to some legally messy situations, and potentially, some unintended environmental consequences.