The U.S. House's Texas GOP Caucus announced Thursday it is united behind a resolution from Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, arguing that states have constitutional authority to secure their borders against an "invasion" or "imminent danger." The caucus is urging Congress to approve the measure, citing what Republicans called the "failed open-border policies" under former President Joe Biden and the millions of illegal immigrants who crossed into the country during his administration.
H.Res. 50 affirms that states retain sovereign authority under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution to defend their territory and citizens from "invasion" or "imminent danger" when the federal government fails to meet its Article IV, Section 4 obligation to protect states from invasion. Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have long treated immigration enforcement as primarily a federal responsibility.
What the Left Is Saying
Democrats and immigration advocates argue that the resolution represents an overreach by states into an area constitutionally reserved for the federal government. Critics contend that allowing individual states to define what constitutes an "invasion" could lead to discriminatory enforcement and undermine federal immigration law. Civil rights organizations have raised concerns about racial profiling and due process violations when state-level immigration measures are implemented.
Democratic lawmakers have noted that the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish uniform rules on immigration, not individual states. They argue that resolutions like H.Res. 50 could encourage states to take unilateral action on matters that require coordinated federal policy. Immigration rights groups have filed lawsuits challenging Texas Senate Bill 4, a separate state measure that would allow police officers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally crossing into the U.S.
What the Right Is Saying
Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, said in a statement to Fox News Digital: "It is the job of elected officials to protect the Americans that sent them to office. Unfortunately, we've seen Democrat leaders willfully facilitate a border invasion time and time again. States ought to be able to step in and secure the border when federal government cannot or will not do so."
Texas GOP Caucus Chairman Rep. Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas, said: "The Framers understood that a state cannot be left at the mercy of a federal government that refuses to do its job when there's an invasion at its border. That's why Article I, Section 10 exists — and that's exactly the situation Texas and our border states faced for four years under the Biden administration."
Arrington argued that fentanyl and other drugs flowing across the border contributed to more than 100,000 overdose deaths in a single year during the Biden administration. "The drugs were killing hundreds of thousands, they were killing a plane load of American citizens every week," Arrington said. He stated the resolution is needed to ensure states can act if future administrations fail to secure the border.
What the Numbers Show
According to Customs and Border Protection data, illegal border crossings reached historic highs during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 under Biden administration policies. CBP reported more than 2 million encounters in fiscal year 2022 and over 1.7 million in fiscal year 2023.
The CDC reported that more than 107,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2023, with synthetic opioids like fentanyl accounting for the majority of deaths. The Drug Enforcement Administration has estimated that most fentanyl entering the U.S. comes through official ports of entry from Mexico.
H.Res. 50 was first introduced in January 2021 and has received support from the Texas GOP Caucus, conservative organizations, law enforcement officials and legal experts. The resolution currently awaits action by the House Judiciary Committee.
The Bottom Line
The resolution highlights an ongoing constitutional tension between state and federal authority over immigration enforcement. While Article I, Section 10 does grant states certain emergency powers, courts have consistently upheld federal primacy in regulating immigration. Legal scholars are divided on whether a congressional finding of federal failure could strengthen states' legal arguments for taking independent action.
The measure comes amid active litigation over Texas SB4, which a federal appeals court has considered. What to watch: whether H.Res. 50 advances through committee, how the Supreme Court rules on related state immigration laws, and whether other border states signal support for similar legislative approaches.