The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to resume construction of a border wall and related infrastructure in the Big Bend sector of West Texas while a legal challenge to the project moves forward.1,3,5
In a five-page unsigned decision, the court lifted a preliminary injunction issued last month by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone that had barred barrier construction and "any construction or ground disturbing activities" in the sector. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she would have denied the Justice Department's request for emergency relief. The majority said the lower court's order delays construction of the barrier and roads and "impedes the Government from advancing its 'compelling interests' in border security and integrity."1
The Big Bend sector covers more than 500 miles of the southern border and includes Big Bend National Park. The project at issue involves new 30-foot bollard walls, described elsewhere as 30-foot-tall steel walls in some areas, as well as vehicle barriers and roads. Customs and Border Protection has said the work includes more than 200 miles of patrol roads and roughly 17 miles of a vehicle-barrier system, and that construction of a 47-mile-long stretch of wall in Hudspeth County, which is part of the region, began in September. Republicans in Congress last summer funded the wall project with $46 billion, and Customs and Border Protection has been erecting 12 miles of barriers a week across the entire border.1,3
The administration had asked the court last month to intervene, arguing that Cardone's order frustrated its ability to combat illegal crossings in the area. Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned that stopping work would have serious consequences, including "disruption of the government's ability to secure a quarter of the southern border against cartel incursions, drug trafficking, and illegal entry; creation of a massive vulnerability in border protection that risks funneling illegal entry and trafficking into the unsecured Big Bend Sector; and irreversible delays, costs, and operational harms from halting already-begun construction."1
The plaintiffs — an environmental nonprofit, a professional riverboat guide and a religious organization — argued that resuming construction would permanently alter what they called 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. "Once habitat is destroyed, vegetation cleared, historic resources damaged, livelihoods and private property destroyed, and wilderness landscapes fragmented by roads, barriers, and associated infrastructure, no final judgment can restore the status quo," lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in a Supreme Court filing.1
The Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs, criticized the decision. "The Trump administration and its contractors are hellbent on destroying one of America's greatest national parks, and the Supreme Court just gave them the green light," Laiken Jordahl, the group's national public lands advocate, said in a statement. "This horrific decision clears the way for contractors to bulldoze pristine desert and dynamite canyon walls before the courts have even decided whether this destruction is legal. They're signing off on the permanent destruction of the wildest place in Texas, and the theft of a great American river from all of us."1
At the center of the dispute are waivers issued to speed construction. Beginning in February, the secretary of Homeland Security — first Kristi Noem and then Markwayne Mullin — issued a total of three waivers for project areas in the Big Bend region. The federal government would typically have to ensure compliance with federal environmental protection and historical preservation laws before construction, but the department invoked a 1996 federal immigration law that gives the secretary authority to waive legal requirements deemed necessary to ensure "expeditious" construction of barriers and roads near the southern border.1
The plaintiffs said the waivers would "authorize massive projects that would cleave through the Chihuahuan Desert, sever public and wildlife access to iconic sections of the Rio Grande, and mark one of the final—and most consequential — steps towards completing 'the Wall.'" Cardone found that the secretary exceeded his authority in issuing the waivers. The Supreme Court disagreed for purposes of emergency relief, saying the challengers "claim that construction in the Big Bend Sector will diminish their ability to use and enjoy the area," but adding that "Congress's enactment of [immigration law] — which permits the Secretary to waive the requirements of environmental-protection and other conservation laws — reflects a clear preference for expeditious border construction over the very harms respondents assert."1
The project had already drawn opposition in Texas before the court acted. After photos and videos shared on social media in August showed bulldozers arriving at Big Bend National Park, Republican and Democratic lawmakers, cattle ranchers and local law enforcement objected. In response, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott announced that construction inside the park would be paused until the end of September. Scott has said the proposed 30-foot wall will not cut through Big Bend National Park, but that other infrastructure would.1,3
What that infrastructure would cross is described differently in the available accounts. The Washington Times described the ruling as allowing construction including through the rugged national park. Scott has said the wall itself will not cut through the park, while other infrastructure, including the patrol roads and vehicle-barrier system, would, according to Customs and Border Protection. It is not known from the reports how those descriptions overlap on the ground.1,5,7
President Donald Trump has promised for more than a decade to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and has made the 30-foot barrier a cornerstone of his plan to address illegal immigration. He has long vowed to build a wall from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. In Texas' Big Bend region, bipartisan opponents have argued the project is a waste of money that threatens the unique landscape, while the government has pushed forward by issuing sweeping waivers to bypass regulations that are aimed at protecting the environment, but have historically slowed down major construction projects.1,3
The court's order allows construction to resume for now while legal challenges continue. Construction may proceed in the meantime, with the broader fight over the Big Bend barriers still to be resolved.1,3,6
