The court stayed a judge’s injunction across the West Texas region, including Big Bend National Park, while the Trump administration seeks review of the case. The order is temporary, not a final ruling on the project’s legality.
The US Supreme Court on 9 November granted President Donald Trump’s emergency request to put an injunction on hold, allowing border-barrier construction to resume across the Big Bend region of West Texas, including Big Bend National Park. The administration is seeking Supreme Court review while the temporary order is in effect.
US District Judge Kathleen Cardone had halted the work on 2 October, finding that challengers were likely to show the administration had exceeded its authority to waive environmental rules. She issued her written opinion on 14 October.
The Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Ruidosa Church and Danny William Miller Jr., a local river guide and landowner, filed the lawsuit in April. They challenged US Department of Homeland Security waivers used to speed construction by bypassing environmental and conservation requirements.
The plaintiffs said that without the waivers, the work would have to comply with the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. Opponents say construction would disrupt the park’s ecologically and culturally significant landscape; its mountains and desert are home to endangered species including the Mexican long-nosed bat.
The administration describes the project as an urgent national-security and immigration-control priority and says Big Bend is a route for irregular crossings and drug trafficking. Cardone questioned whether the waiver’s high-illegal-entry rationale applied: she said the sector covers more than 25% of the US-Mexico border but accounts for 0.3% to 2.2% of migrant apprehensions. On that basis, she reasoned, the same rationale would apply to every sector.
The Supreme Court said the government was “exceedingly likely to prevail” on its argument that Cardone lacked jurisdiction under the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Under that law, district courts can hear only constitutional challenges of this kind. The court said there is no constitutional major-questions claim, so the challengers’ argument did not qualify for district-court review.
The Trump administration seeks to lift the temporary halt during its appeal, while Texas landowners resist access for surveys and construction.
The court said the injunction impeded the government’s interests in border security and integrity, which it found outweighed the aesthetic, recreational and environmental harm alleged by the plaintiffs. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice who indicated she would deny the request; she did not explain her position.
Laiken Jordahl, the Center for Biological Diversity’s national public lands advocate, warned that contractors could bulldoze desert and dynamite canyon walls before courts decide whether the work is legal. The Texas Tribune said the challenged waiver laws route review past federal appeals courts. The temporary order lasts until the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the case or the case is settled in the lower court.
6 min
