Given documentary evidence, treaty claims, and the fact that the Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of the fact, there was no clear error in holding that the Rio Grande is a navigable river in Texas. Navigability can include ferry traffic across the river.
No clear error in the District Court's holding that the floating obstruction devices tended to interfere with or diminish the navigable aspects of the river. Structures were sufficiently permanent to come with the scope of the Act.
The constitutional gravity of a state's declaration of invasion and decision to mount an independent defense is inapposite to a motion for a preliminary injunction. Court appropriately considered policy considerations when balancing equities.
DISSENT:
No showing that this segment of the river was historically navigable. Statutes and treaties precautionary and precatory, respectively. Use of the river must have been more than sporadic, ineffective, and exceptional. Out of context quote from the Supreme Court doesn't outweigh Texas geography. Injunction directs the moving of the barrier, so the diplomatic harms aren't redressable. Balance of equities favors the state. Allowing certain newspaper articles in under judicial notice was error.