Supreme Court allows border wall construction in Texas’ Big Bend sector to resume
The Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in a dispute over construction of a border wall in Texas’ Big Bend sector, temporarily lifting a federal judge’s order that had halted the work.
The justices voted 8-1 on Monday to pause the injunction while the case proceeds. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissenter.
How the dispute began
In February, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced plans for additional barriers and roads in part of the Big Bend sector. The department described the area as a location with high levels of unlawful border crossings and said Border Patrol agents had apprehended more than 89,000 people attempting to enter the country illegally there from fiscal years 2021 through 2025.
To speed up construction across the roughly 517-mile region, Noem used Section 102 of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The provision allows the homeland security secretary to waive certain legal requirements, including some environmental rules, for border projects. Her successor, Markwayne Mullin, later issued two more waivers for the area.
The Center for Biological Diversity, a river guide and a nonprofit that works to preserve a church in Ruidosa, Texas, sued Mullin, the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection in April. The plaintiffs questioned whether the area qualified as one with high levels of illegal entry and argued that Mullin had gone beyond the authority granted to him by law.
On October 2, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone ordered the government to stop construction and other ground-disturbing work in the sector until it complied with applicable laws. The case then reached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s ruling
In an unsigned order, the justices said the government was highly likely to succeed on its argument that the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ claim under the major-questions doctrine.
The court noted that the plaintiffs had argued Mullin exceeded his statutory authority, rather than alleging that the administration violated the Constitution. It cited past rulings recognizing that claims that the executive branch exceeded its authority under a statute are not, by themselves, constitutional claims.
The justices also noted that the injunction interfered with the government’s stated interests in border security. A Customs and Border Protection official had said the pause was costing taxpayers millions of dollars each week.
The ruling pauses Cardone’s injunction; it does not resolve the underlying legal dispute.
Reactions to the decision
The Center for Biological Diversity criticized the ruling, saying it could allow contractors to damage desert land and canyon walls before a court determines whether the project is lawful. The group also argued that the construction threatens the area’s natural and cultural resources.
James Percival, the Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, welcomed the decision, saying the department had challenged the district court’s order as unprecedented and legally flawed.
A Justice Department spokesperson called the decision a major win for border security and said construction could continue after the Supreme Court set aside the district court’s order.
The order came hours after Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas published an opinion piece opposing the project. Cornyn argued that a wall was not the best approach for some parts of the region, citing concerns about property rights, local economies, Native American cultural sites and wildlife.
