Supreme Court allows Trump border wall construction

Nov 10 · Supreme Court lifts preliminary injunction on border project Updated 01:31

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 to lift a preliminary injunction previously issued by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as the sole dissenter. Judge Cardone had argued that DHS secretaries lacked authority to waive environmental laws under the major questions doctrine. Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued the district court lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court stated that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) allows only for constitutional claims, not statutory ones. The stay remains in effect pending a petition for a writ of certiorari.

Opponents include the Center for Biological Diversity and a nonprofit seeking to preserve a historic church. The Center for Biological Diversity argues the project threatens wildlife and protected river corridors. The administration claims the project is justified by high illegal entry and daily costs of $500,000. Solicitor General D. John Sauer stated the sector has seen 89,000 apprehensions over four years. ABC News reported that CBP statistics show 1% of migrant encounters occur in this sector, while Fox News reported the Big Bend Sector accounted for 1.3% of 2025 apprehensions. Fox News reported that most construction will occur on private land, with a 17-mile barrier planned for Big Bend National Park. U.S. Customs and Border Protection stated it does not plan to build a wall inside Big Bend National Park itself, but intends to add patrol roads and vehicle barriers. The Guardian reported that construction is planned for isolated canyons where there have been no documented unauthorized vehicle crossings and where vehicles cannot reach the border. Some areas of the project will require dynamite blasting.

The project is funded by the 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. Contracts totaling $6bn have already been awarded for the 'smart wall', and CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott expects the project to be completed by the end of Trump's second term. The Trump administration argued that leaving a gap in the wall would attract cartels and illegal entry, while Senator John Cornyn and editor Isaac Saul argued that the barriers are unnecessary and indiscriminate.

The Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling clarifies that the 1996 waiver law is a statutory tool, not a constitutional one. This distinction stripped the district court of jurisdiction, effectively shielding the administration's use of waivers from statutory challenges in lower courts. The legal victory rests on a procedural technicality regarding jurisdiction rather than a final judgment on the ecological merits.

ABC News and Fox News provided critical utility by reporting that only 1% to 1.3% of migrant encounters occur in this sector. These specific data points directly challenge the administration's claim of "high illegal entry" and highlight the gap between the government's security narrative and CBP's own statistics.

The Guardian provided a notable independent fact by reporting that construction is planned for isolated canyons where no unauthorized vehicle crossings have been documented and where vehicles cannot reach the border. This detail adds a concrete layer to the debate over whether the project is a necessary security remedy or an ecological sacrifice.

Most coverage focused on the legal outcome or the general tension between security and nature. Only The Federalist and Reason explained the specific legal mechanism—the major questions doctrine—that the district court used to block the project and why the Supreme Court rejected its application.

Readers should watch whether the administration proceeds with the 17-mile barrier inside Big Bend National Park, as LA Times and Fox News report conflicting details on whether a wall will actually be built inside the park boundaries or if the project will be limited to roads and vehicle barriers.