Is there any limit to the US federal government's power to cede territory through the Treaty Clause?

Question

The Boundary Treaty of 1970 ceded to Mexico the Horcón Tract, a piece of land that was part of the state of Texas. (In fact, it even had inhabitants at the time.)

It's been claimed that the consent of Texas was not required and was not sought because this matter falls within the treaty power of the United States and, in general, treaties entered into by the United States don't need consent from states in order to be legally effective.

In my view, this is interesting because it seems that the federal government could hypothetically abolish the state of Texas by entering into a treaty with Mexico in which the US and Mexico would agree to recognize the entire territory of Texas as the independent Republic of Texas. (Technically, this might not actually destroy the state as a legal entity; it would still be entitled to 2 senators, but it wouldn't have any residents, so there wouldn't be anyone who could choose them.) Is it plausible that the constitution actually allows this to occur without the consent of Texas, or is there some limiting principle?

Answer 1

This seems to be an unresolved legal question. Cruz (2014) appears to endorse the position that the consent of the state is required, citing dictum in Reid v. Covert. He also cites Lawson & Seidman (2005), who take the position that the treaty power should be considered to permit the cession of state territory without the state's consent only when the treaty is used to implement a peace settlement.

Cruz, a US senator for the state of Texas, does not comment on the Boundary Treaty of 1970 (which was signed the same year he was born) nor elaborate on what constitutes sufficient consent.