Christopher Hajec, Director of Litigation at the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), recently testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government. During his testimony, he stated that Texas has the flexibility to pursue congressional objectives such as border defense when there is a lack of executive enforcement from the current administration. This hearing was held on January 30 and was titled "The Southern Border Crisis: The Constitution and the States".
In his address, Hajec emphasized that a state has the freedom to pursue congressional objectives which have been disregarded by the administration, provided it does not violate federal law in doing so. He stated, "A state is free to pursue congressional objectives that the administration has spurned, as long as it does not violate federal law while doing so."
As per Congress.gov, Hajec currently serves as the director of litigation at IRLI where he focuses on public interest litigation with an emphasis on constitutional and civil rights law. His career includes studying the impacts of both illegal and excessive legal immigration on American jobs and communities. Before joining IRLI, Hajec litigated cases at the Center for Individual Rights (CIR). Prior to his legal career, he served as an officer in the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps. He holds a law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Miami, and is a member of several bars including those of United States Supreme Court and District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
In his testimony, Hajec elaborated that states are empowered by the Constitution to respond to emergencies through non-preempted laws and engagement in war. He explained that although federal law established by Supremacy Clause may preempt state measures, this preemption situation is not critical for states due to their objectives' nature and contrasting stance with administration's policies. According to Hajec, the administration's enforcement policies are in conflict with the operational control objective of federal immigration law, which aims for "zero illegal entries."
Hajec further clarified that Texas is not violating any law by continuing to install razor wire at the border as a measure to prevent illegal entries. He stated that this act does not contravene the law but rather opposes "only to the anti-enforcement purpose of the administration."
In his closing remarks, Hajec suggested that states have considerable leeway, including in defensive barriers' area, even without invoking their self-defense powers under the Constitution. He proposed that courts should treat cases against Texas's war measures such as razor wire and floating barriers as non-justiciable political questions.
