Supreme Court Lets Trump Resume Border Wall Construction Across Big Bend
In an unsigned order, the justices lifted a Texas judge's injunction covering more than 500 miles of the border, including land around Big Bend National Park. Justice Jackson would have denied the request.
The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume building a border wall and related infrastructure in West Texas while a lawsuit over the project plays out.
In an unsigned five-page decision, the justices lifted a lower court's injunction that had halted construction in the Big Bend sector, a stretch of more than 500 miles of the southern border that includes Big Bend National Park. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she would have denied the Justice Department's emergency request.
The court said the lower court's order delayed construction of the barrier and roads and "impedes the Government from advancing its 'compelling interests' in border security and integrity." It acknowledged the challengers' argument that construction would "diminish their ability to use and enjoy the area." But it said Congress had shown "a clear preference for expeditious border construction" over those harms, and it pointed to the immigration-law provision that lets the Homeland Security secretary waive environmental and conservation requirements.
The administration had asked the justices to step in last month. It argued that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone's order hindered its ability to combat illegal crossings. Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned of disrupting the government's ability to secure "a quarter of the southern border," of funneling illegal entry into the unsecured Big Bend sector, and of costly delays to work already underway.
The plaintiffs include an environmental nonprofit, a professional riverboat guide and a religious organization. They argued the project would permanently alter an "irreplaceable landscape" that includes Big Bend National Park, Big Bend Ranch State Park and nearly 200 miles of the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River corridor. Their lawyers wrote that once habitat and historic resources are damaged, "no final judgment can restore the status quo."
Laiken Jordahl, a public lands advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs, condemned the ruling. He said the administration and its contractors were intent on destroying one of America's great national parks, and warned that contractors could begin clearing land before courts decide whether the work is legal.
Homeland Security Secretaries Kristi Noem and, later, Markwayne Mullin issued three waivers covering Big Bend project areas beginning in February, relying on a 1996 law that lets the secretary set aside legal requirements deemed necessary for the "expeditious" construction of barriers and roads near the border. Without a waiver, the government would have to comply with federal environmental and historic preservation laws first.
The project drew bipartisan objections in August after photos and videos showed bulldozers arriving at Big Bend National Park. Republican and Democratic lawmakers, Texas cattle ranchers and local law enforcement pushed back. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott paused construction inside the park until the end of September. He said the 30-foot wall would not cut through the park, though CBP acknowledged other infrastructure would, including more than 200 miles of patrol roads and about 17 miles of vehicle barriers. Construction of a 47-mile stretch of wall in Hudspeth County, within the Big Bend region, began in September.
Last month Cardone granted a preliminary injunction barring barriers and "any construction or ground disturbing activities" in the sector, finding that the Homeland Security secretary had exceeded his authority in issuing the waivers.
The two sides also disagree on the facts. The government says immigration officers apprehended more than 89,000 people in the area between 2021 and 2025. The plaintiffs say Big Bend ranks last for apprehensions among the seven southern border sectors, and that although it covers more than 25% of the border, annual apprehensions there ranged from 0.3% to 2.2% of border-wide totals, according to court filings.
