Recognizing that article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution explicitly reserves to the States the sovereign power to repel an invasion and defend their citizenry from the overwhelming and "imminent danger" posed by paramilitary, narco-terrorist cartels, terrorists and criminal actors who seized control of our southern border.

Bill Number

H.Res. 50

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Immigration

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-01-16: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2026-06-23T08:05:45Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This House Resolution (H. Res. 50) aims to affirm the constitutional authority of U.S. states, particularly those along the southern border, to protect themselves from what it describes as an "invasion" or "imminent danger" at the border caused by criminal organizations, terrorists, and illegal immigration. It criticizes the federal government's handling of border security during the Biden administration and invokes specific constitutional provisions to justify state-level actions.

Key Provisions

The resolution includes a series of "Whereas" clauses outlining factual claims about border issues from 2021 to 2024, such as record-high apprehensions, increased crimes by immigrants, drug smuggling, and cartel activities. It then resolves the following declarations by the House of Representatives:

• State Sovereignty on Exclusion: Affirms that any U.S. state has the inherent right to exclude individuals who lack legal authorization to be in its territory.
• Border States' Defense Authority: Declares that southern border states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California) faced an "invasion" or "imminent danger" from paramilitary cartels, narco-terrorists, criminals, and terrorists, granting them unilateral authority under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution (which prohibits states from engaging in war without congressional consent unless actually invaded or in imminent danger) to defend themselves without delay.
• Federal Failure to Protect: States that the U.S. government failed to safeguard these states against invasion as required by Article IV, Section 4 (the Guarantee Clause, which obligates the federal government to protect states from invasion and ensure a republican form of government), and neglected duties to "insure domestic tranquility," "provide for the common defense," and execute federal laws as outlined in the Preamble and presidential oath.
• Biden Administration's Shortcomings: Accuses the Biden administration of failing to faithfully execute U.S. laws and protect border states from invasion or danger.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This is a non-binding resolution, meaning it expresses the House's opinion and does not amend or create new laws. It does not introduce statutory changes but interprets existing constitutional provisions (e.g., the "invasion" clause in Article IV, Section 4, and state self-defense under Article I, Section 10) in a way that supports expanded state powers at the border. No direct alterations to federal immigration, border security, or criminal laws are made.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Could pressure federal agencies like Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security to increase border enforcement, while encouraging state law enforcement to take more independent actions (e.g., deploying National Guard or building barriers), potentially leading to resource strains and jurisdictional conflicts between state and federal levels.
• On Citizens: Border communities may see heightened security measures, which could improve perceived safety from crime and drugs but also increase costs for services like healthcare and education due to migrant influxes. Nationwide, it highlights ongoing debates over immigration's effects on public safety, drug epidemics, and local resources.
• On International Relations: May strain U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries by framing border issues as an "invasion" involving foreign cartels and terrorists, potentially complicating diplomatic efforts on migration and counternarcotics without directly affecting treaties or foreign policy.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Border States and Local Governments: Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, including state officials, law enforcement, ranchers, healthcare providers, and educators who bear direct costs and risks from border activities.
• Federal Government: The executive branch (e.g., President and agencies like CBP), Congress, and the judiciary, as it challenges federal immigration enforcement and could prompt legal defenses of state actions.
• Citizens and Communities: Residents of border states facing property damage, crime, and service overloads; broader U.S. population affected by drug trafficking and national security concerns.
• Immigrants and Criminal Actors: Undocumented migrants, including those on terrorist watchlists, and cartels, who may face increased state-led barriers to entry or apprehension.
• Law Enforcement and First Responders: Overwhelmed by handling crossings, crimes, and seizures, with potential for more state-federal coordination or conflicts.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Constitutional Interpretation: Relies on the debated "invasion" clause (Article IV, Section 4), which courts have rarely applied to immigration contexts (typically reserved for military threats). This could invite lawsuits testing whether illegal immigration qualifies as an "invasion," potentially expanding state powers under the 10th Amendment (reserving powers to states) but risking federal preemption under immigration law.
• Political Ramifications: As a partisan measure introduced by Republican representatives, it amplifies immigration as a wedge issue, criticizing prior administration policies (e.g., ending border wall construction or "catch and release"). It may fuel calls for stricter federal laws but has limited enforceability without broader congressional action.
• Legal Risks: Encourages state actions that could lead to constitutional challenges, such as violations of federal supremacy (Article VI) or due process for migrants, similar to ongoing disputes over Texas's border operations. No direct impact on individual rights, but it underscores tensions in federalism (division of power between national and state governments).

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Arrington, Jodey C. [R-TX-19]

Cosponsors (39)

Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3], Rep. Ellzey, Jake [R-TX-6], Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24], Rep. Fallon, Pat [R-TX-4], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22], Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1], Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36], Rep. Williams, Roger [R-TX-25], Rep. Crenshaw, Dan [R-TX-2], Rep. Gooden, Lance [R-TX-5], Rep. De La Cruz, Monica [R-TX-15], Rep. Luttrell, Morgan [R-TX-8], Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13], Rep. Gonzales, Tony [R-TX-23], Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10], Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31], Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2], Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-17], Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21], Rep. Hunt, Wesley [R-TX-38], Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11], Rep. Goldman, Craig A. [R-TX-12], Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27], Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26], Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1], Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3], Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19], Rep. Timmons, William R. [R-SC-4], Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5], Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1], Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1], Rep. Collins, Mike [R-GA-10], Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17], Rep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7], Rep. Murphy, Gregory F. [R-NC-3], Rep. Edwards, Chuck [R-NC-11], Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4], Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1]

Recent Actions

• 2025-01-16: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2025-01-16: Submitted in House
• 2025-01-16: Submitted in House

Bill Versions

• Recognizing that article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution explicitly reserves to the States the sovereign power to repel an invasion and defend their citizenry from the overwhelming and "imminent danger" posed by paramilitary, narco-terrorist cartels, terrorists and criminal actors who seized control of our southern border. — issued 2025-01-16 — PDF (5 pages)