The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume construction on a major border barrier project in Texas' remote Big Bend region, with liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. The high court granted the administration’s request to stay a lower-court preliminary injunction that had blocked Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin from using federal waiver authority to advance the project. Jackson was the sole justice identified in the order as opposing the action.
The decision stated simply: “JUSTICE JACKSON would deny the application for stay.” Jackson did not provide a written explanation. The majority found that the administration was “exceedingly likely to prevail” on its argument that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to consider the challengers' claims. The ruling provides an immediate legal boost to the administration’s plans to expand barriers across the U.S.-Mexico border, a project that has drawn opposition from conservationists and local groups over potential landscape and ecological damage.
President Donald Trump has made reducing illegal crossings of the southern border one of the main policy priorities of his presidency. His "One Big Beautiful Bill," which was signed into law last year, earmarked $46.5 billion for the construction of fencing and other obstacles to deter illegal immigration across the 1,954-mile-long border. Planned barriers include hundreds of miles of 30-foot border wall along with surveillance systems and river barriers.
This will require building on private as well as federally owned land, where initial construction of the border wall was concentrated. In August, bulldozers were seen at the Big Bend National Park clearing land ahead of construction, sparking cross-party anger. In response, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) halted the work, but the pause ended on September 30.
The lawsuit was brought by an individual river guide, the environmental nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the Ruidosa Church, an organization dedicated to preserving a historic church in Ruidosa, Texas. The challengers argued that Mullin exceeded congressional authority by using a federal waiver provision to set aside environmental and conservation laws. They invoked the “major-questions doctrine,” arguing that such a consequential exercise of executive power required clear authorization from Congress.
The administration countered that Congress explicitly gave the DHS secretary broad authority to waive legal requirements to expedite border barriers. In its filing, the government called the lower court order a “baseless injunction that halts a major portion of the construction of the border wall.” At the center of the dispute is Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, which grants the DHS secretary broad authority to construct barriers and roads and “to waive all legal requirements” considered “necessary to ensure expeditious construction.” On October 2, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction blocking the waivers, concluding that Mullin lacked “clear congressional authorization.” After the injuction, a spokesperson for U.S.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
