US Supreme Court allows Big Bend border wall construction to resume, lifting a judge's halt while the lawsuit continues
The US Supreme Court on Monday lifted a federal judge's order that had halted border barrier and road construction across the Big Bend region of West Texas, including in Big Bend National Park, since 2 October. In an unsigned ruling, the court said the government was exceedingly likely to show the district court had no jurisdiction over the challengers' claim, and that Congress's preference for expeditious border construction outweighs the aesthetic, recreational and environmental harm alleged. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the stay. The ruling is not a final decision on whether the Homeland Security waivers of environmental laws are lawful — that case continues.
Key points
- Construction in the Big Bend Sector can resume: the 2 October injunction is stayed while the government seeks Supreme Court review.
- The court says the district court very likely had no jurisdiction, because the claim is about statutory authority, not the Constitution.
- Justice Jackson was the only justice who would have denied the stay.
Show more (1)
- The ruling does not decide whether the environmental-law waivers are lawful — that question remains open.
What happened
The Big Bend Sector covers 517 miles of the US–Mexico border along the Rio Grande. Crews began work in the national park in August before the administration paused construction after bipartisan criticism; Judge Cardone's injunction then halted the project on 2 October.
The case tests how far a 1996 law lets the Homeland Security secretary set aside environmental and conservation laws — including, for the first time according to the challengers, inside a national park.
Both sides, in their own words
Both sides heard. Neither believed for free. Publishing a side's version is not endorsing it — the claim checks below are where verdicts live.
Side A · The US government
- Homeland Security secretaries Kristi Noem and Markwayne Mullin found the Big Bend Sector an area of high illegal entry requiring more barriers, and waived environmental and conservation laws under a 1996 statute to expedite construction.
- The administration says most construction, spanning more than 300 miles, will be on private land, with a 17-mile noncontiguous vehicle barrier in the national park, and that border officials have seized large quantities of drugs in the region.
- The Justice Department told the court the district judge's ruling was baseless and the waiver authority is a clear, express delegation from Congress used for decades.
Side B · The challengers — the Center for Biological Diversity, a river guide and Friends of the Ruidosa Church
- The waivers swept aside environmental laws — including inside a national park, for the first time — without the clear congressional authorisation the major questions doctrine requires.
- District Judge Kathleen Cardone agreed in October, noting Big Bend has by far the lowest rate of migrant apprehensions on the border, and halted construction.
- The Center's Laiken Jordahl said the ruling clears the way to bulldoze pristine desert and dynamite canyon walls before the courts have decided whether the destruction is legal.
Independently verified
5 claims independently verified — listed in the claim-by-claim check below.Not yet verified
Nothing outstanding.What we know / what we don't know yet
What we know
- The stay is granted, on the court's stated jurisdictional reasoning, and it lasts until the review process it describes is finished.
What we don't know yet
- Whether the Supreme Court will take the case and how it will finally rule on the waivers' legality.
- Whether construction crews have in fact returned to work on the ground since the ruling — no Border Patrol confirmation was in the reporting read.
Claim by claim
Show all claims (5)
Why this label: The stay, its duration and Justice Jackson's position are in the court's own per curiam order, read in full; Reuters' report of the ruling is in agreement.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: This is the court's own reasoning, in its own words, in the order.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: Both points are in the court's order; the daily-cost figure is the government official's declaration as cited by the court.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: The statute and the waivers are set out in the court's order and Reuters' report; the mileage and park-barrier details are the administration's account as reported by Reuters.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: The suit, Judge Cardone's reasoning and Jordahl's words are reported by Reuters; Jordahl's statement is also in the Center's own release. Both are carried as the parties' positions and the lower court's ruling, not as findings of the Supreme Court.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why it matters
The order lets building resume now in one of America's most protected landscapes, while the deeper question — whether Congress ever authorised waivers on this scale — is still undecided. Whatever the courts finally say about the waivers will govern border construction far beyond Big Bend.
Background
Show the background timeline (4)
Homeland Security secretaries Noem and Mullin issue waivers of environmental and conservation laws for Big Bend Sector construction.
Crews begin clearing land in Big Bend National Park; the administration pauses construction after bipartisan criticism.
Judge Cardone blocks the waivers and halts all associated construction.
The Supreme Court stays the injunction, allowing construction to resume while the lawsuit continues.
Update history
No silent edits. Every change is written here, with its time.
- Latest
Published — the stay, the court's reasoning and Justice Jackson's dissent position are in the Supreme Court's own order.