Supreme Court Greenlights Border Wall Construction in Big Bend National Park, Overruling Lower Court Injunction

The United States Supreme Court has permitted the Trump administration to proceed with building a border wall through a remote area of Big Bend National Park in West Texas. In a decision delivered on Monday, the court granted the government’s emergency request to lift a prior injunction that had halted construction during ongoing litigation. The court stated that the injunction “impedes the Government from advancing its ‘compelling interests’ in border security and integrity.”

The border wall has been a central promise of President Donald Trump’s platform aimed at curbing immigration into the U.S. During his 2016 presidential campaign, he frequently used the slogan “Build the wall!” However, the plan to extend the border barrier through the popular national park has faced opposition from conservationists, local officials, and some members of the Republican Party.

Big Bend National Park, characterized by its mountain ranges and desert terrain, is home to endangered species such as the Mexican long-nosed bat. Opponents argue that constructing the wall through the park would disrupt this ecologically and culturally significant landscape. The Trump administration, conversely, has emphasized the project’s urgency for national security and immigration control, identifying the Big Bend area as a key route for irregular border crossings and drug trafficking.

Earlier, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone had blocked construction in October. She noted that while the Big Bend Sector constitutes over 25 percent of the U.S.-Mexico border, it accounts for a mere 0.3 to 2.2 percent of migrant apprehensions. Judge Cardone wrote, “Therefore, if the Big Bend Sector is an area of high illegal entry, so is every other sector, and the waiver authority would apply to the entire US-Mexico border.”

The Supreme Court, however, indicated that the government was “exceedingly likely to prevail” in its argument that Judge Cardone lacked jurisdiction under the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This law restricts the ability of lower courts to rule on border barrier cases. Under this act, district courts can only adjudicate claims alleging a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court determined that the challengers’ claim did not meet this standard, stating, “there is no such thing as a ‘constitutional’ major-questions claim.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole justice to signal her opposition to the government’s request, though she did not elaborate on her reasoning. The Center for Biological Diversity, along with Friends of the Ruidosa Church and a local river guide and landowner, were among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against the Department of Homeland Security. Their lawsuit challenged the waivers the agency used to expedite border construction and bypass environmental and conservation laws. The plaintiffs contended that without these waivers, construction would have been required to comply with laws like the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act when altering the landscape in “one of the most remote and ecologically and culturally significant landscapes in the United States.”