Construction can proceed as US Supreme Court allows border wall through Big Bend National Park
Supreme Court lifts injunction
On Monday, the Supreme Court granted the government’s emergency request to lift an injunction that had halted construction during litigation. The ruling allows the administration to move forward with plans for a wall through a remote section of the park.
The justices said the government was “exceedingly likely to prevail” on its claim that US District Judge Kathleen Cardone lacked jurisdiction under a 1996 immigration law. That law limits lower courts’ ability to hear challenges to border barriers.
Dispute over border security
The administration has described the Big Bend area as a route for irregular border crossings and drug trafficking, presenting the wall as a priority for national security and immigration control. Border barriers have long been a signature part of Trump’s platform.
Opponents include conservationists, local officials and some Republicans. They say construction could disrupt a landscape that is ecologically and culturally significant, including habitat for endangered species such as the Mexican long-nosed bat.
Lawsuit challenged waivers
Judge Cardone blocked construction in October. She noted that the Big Bend sector covers more than 25 percent of the US-Mexico border but accounts for between 0.3 and 2.2 percent of migrant apprehensions.
The Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Ruidosa Church, a local river guide and a landowner sued the Department of Homeland Security. They challenged waivers that let the agency accelerate construction without following environmental and conservation laws, including the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
Key points
- The Supreme Court lifted the injunction blocking planned wall construction in Big Bend National Park.
- The court found the government was likely to prevail on its argument that the lower court lacked jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs say waivers bypass environmental and conservation laws.
- Opponents warn construction could affect endangered wildlife and a culturally significant landscape.