The Supreme Court cleared the way for President Donald Trump to resume border wall construction in West Texas on Monday, November 9. The decision lifts a lower court order that had blocked work in the Big Bend region, including Big Bend National Park.
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices put a federal judge’s October 2 injunction on hold while a legal challenge against the project continues.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice who dissented. She did not explain her decision.
The ruling allows construction to move forward across the Big Bend Sector, which covers a large stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Trump administration has proposed more than 300 miles of border barriers and related infrastructure in the region.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone had halted construction after environmental groups and local residents challenged the administration’s decision to bypass several federal environmental protections.
The lawsuit was brought by a river guide, an environmental organization, and a nonprofit dedicated to preserving a historic church in Texas.
Opponents argued that the project would damage the region’s natural landscape, interfere with recreational activities, and threaten protected areas.
However, the Supreme Court concluded that a 1996 immigration law gives the Department of Homeland Security broad authority to waive legal requirements to speed up border barrier construction.
Under Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, the Homeland Security secretary can bypass certain federal laws when necessary to build barriers in areas considered vulnerable to illegal crossings.
The law also limits the ability of federal courts to review those decisions unless a lawsuit raises a constitutional violation.
The challengers argued that the administration exceeded the authority Congress had granted it. They relied on a legal principle known as the major questions doctrine, which generally requires clear congressional authorization for government actions of major economic or political significance.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that this amounted to an independent constitutional claim.
“There is no such thing as a ‘constitutional’ major-questions claim,” the justices wrote.
The court also determined that the government’s interest in border security outweighed the environmental and recreational harms raised by opponents.
According to the ruling, the construction delay was costing the federal government nearly $500,000 per day in expenses that could not be recovered.
The administration had warned that leaving a gap of more than 300 miles in border defenses could attract drug cartels and other criminal organizations as barriers were completed elsewhere.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer made that argument in an emergency application filed with the Supreme Court on October 21.
The project has also faced opposition from some Republicans. Outgoing Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) argued that improved technology, additional Border Patrol agents, and cooperation with local officials would be more effective than constructing new barriers across the region.
The Supreme Court’s decision does not permanently resolve the dispute. The ruling allows construction to resume while further court proceedings determine whether the administration’s use of its legal authority can withstand the remaining challenges.