US Supreme Court allows border wall in Big Bend National Park to proceed | Courts News
Supreme Court Authorizes Border Wall Construction in Big Bend National Park
Published on November 9, 2026
The U.S. Supreme Court has permitted the Trump administration to proceed with the construction of a border wall in a remote section of Big Bend National Park, located in West Texas. The decision, issued Monday, grants the government’s emergency request to lift an injunction imposed by a lower court that had temporarily halted the project pending legal review.
The Supreme Court stated that the injunction obstructs the government’s “compelling interests” in ensuring border security and integrity. This border wall project has been a pivotal component of Trump’s immigration policy since his initial presidential campaign, where he frequently called for a fortified border with rallying cries of “Build the wall!”
However, the proposed expansion through Big Bend National Park has faced significant opposition from conservationists, local officials, and even some lawmakers within the Republican Party. The park is known for its diverse ecosystems, which are home to endangered species such as the Mexican long-nosed bat. Critics argue that the wall could disrupt both the ecological and cultural significance of the area.
In October, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone had issued an order blocking construction, highlighting that while the Big Bend sector constitutes more than 25 percent of the U.S.-Mexico border, it only accounts for a minuscule 0.3 to 2.2 percent of migrant apprehensions. “If the Big Bend Sector is an area of high illegal entry, so is every other sector,” Cardone noted, suggesting that the justification for the wall’s construction could apply across the entire border.
The Supreme Court, however, expressed strong confidence that the government would likely succeed in arguing that Judge Cardone lacked jurisdiction under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. This law restricts lower courts’ abilities to adjudicate issues related to border barriers. The Court determined that the challenges raised did not meet constitutional criteria for judicial review.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenting voice, indicating she would have denied the government’s request but did not provide her rationale.
The legal actions against the Department of Homeland Security included a lawsuit from the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Ruidosa Church, and a local river guide and landowner. The lawsuit specifically contends that the administration’s use of waivers to expedite border construction bypasses crucial environmental regulations, such as the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Plaintiffs argue that, without these waivers, any construction would be subject to comprehensive ecological assessments in one of the nation’s most sensitive landscapes.
