The lawsuit sought to block border wall construction in Big Bend National Park by targeting exemptions that circumvent environmental protections.
Published November 9, 2026
The U.S. Supreme Court has given President Donald Trump’s administration the green light to build a border wall in a remote section of Big Bend National Park in West Texas.
In Monday’s ruling, the court granted the government’s urgent request to lift a lower court injunction that had halted construction while the matter was pending.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The paper said the injunction “prevents the government from furthering its ‘compelling interests’ of border security and integrity.”
The border wall has long been a centerpiece of President Trump’s policies to restrict immigration to the United States.
For example, when he first ran for president in 2016, he rallied his supporters with the chant, “Build the wall!”
But moves to expand the border wall through the popular national park have run into opposition from conservationists, local officials and some members of President Trump’s own Republican Party.
Big Bend National Park includes mountain ranges and deserts that are home to endangered species such as the Mexican proboscis bat.
Opponents argue that plans to build a wall through the park would destroy ecologically and culturally important landscapes.
But the Trump administration has positioned the project as an urgent national security and immigration priority. The report describes the Big Bend region as a major artery for irregular border crossings and drug trafficking.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone blocked construction in October, noting that the Big Bend area accounts for more than 25 percent of the U.S.-Mexico border, but only 0.3 to 2.2 percent of the migrant insecurity.
“Thus, if the Big Bend area is a high illegal entry area, so are all other areas, and the waiver authority would apply to the entire U.S.-Mexico border,” Cardon wrote.
But the Supreme Court said it was “very likely to prevail” on the government’s argument that Cardone lacks jurisdiction under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits the ability of lower courts to rule on border walls.
Under this law, district courts can only hear claims alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the challengers’ claims were ineligible, stating, “There is no such thing as a claim that involves serious ‘constitutional’ questions.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only judge to indicate that he would deny the government’s request. She did not explain her reasons.
The Center for Biological Diversity was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, along with Friends of Ruidoza Church, local river guides and landowners.
The lawsuit challenged exemptions used by authorities to fast-track border construction and circumvent environmental protection laws.
Without these exemptions, construction work would have to comply with laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act to alter the landscape of “one of the most remote and ecologically and culturally significant landscapes in the United States,” the plaintiffs said.
