The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume building a border wall in West Texas' Big Bend Sector, staying a federal judge's injunction that had temporarily halted construction while a lawsuit proceeds.
The unsigned decision, issued by a divided court, found that the federal district judge in El Paso who issued the injunction last month had no authority to do so and that the administration was "extremely likely to prevail" on that point, according to NBC News. The court's ruling was 8-1, a lopsided margin that Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival highlighted in a post on X, writing: "When we filed in the Supreme Court, I called the district court's order halting wall construction 'as unprecedented as it is flawed.' We just won 8-1."
The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of environmental groups and local residents, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Ruidosa Church, and Danny Miller, a river guide who owns property in the area. They claim the Department of Homeland Security violated constitutional provisions by proceeding without congressional authorization and bypassing environmental regulations.
The Big Bend Sector spans more than 500 miles—roughly a quarter of the entire U.S.-Mexico border—though it accounted for just 1.3% of all border apprehensions in 2025, Reuters reported. Most of the proposed construction will take place on privately owned land, according to administration officials. A 17-mile barrier is slated for Big Bend National Park, though officials noted it will not feature the 30-foot steel pedestrian fencing planned elsewhere.
Administration officials have argued the wall is vital to stopping cartel operations active south of the border and curbing the smuggling of large quantities of illicit drugs into the United States. The government says 89,000 people have been detained trying to enter the country through the region in recent years, according to NBC News.
The legal dispute focuses on three waivers issued by then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in February and her successor, Markwayne Mullin, in May and July that allowed the government to evade environmental and conservation laws, the Washington Post reported.
Laiken Jordahl, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity, blasted the ruling in a statement: "This horrific decision clears the way for contractors to bulldoze pristine desert and dynamite canyon walls before the courts have even decided whether this destruction is legal."
The fight is not over. The environmental groups' lawsuit continues in the lower courts, and Monday's action merely lifts the injunction while litigation proceeds. The New York Times reported that the administration had asked the court to permit construction in areas including Big Bend National Park.
For Texans living and working along the border, the practical effect is immediate: construction equipment can move back in, and the administration can restart a project it argues is central to national security. Critics, including the plaintiffs in the suit, say the work will scar fragile desert habitat and national park land.
The decision arrives as the Trump administration presses ahead on multiple fronts—mass deportation, border wall completion, and a broader dismantling of what it calls the administrative state. Monday's ruling signals the high court is inclined to give the executive branch wide latitude on border security, at least for now.
Our Take
Eight to one. Let that sink in.
For months, radical environmental groups and their allies in the lower courts have done everything in their power to stop President Trump from finishing the wall—the same wall Congress funded, the same wall the American people voted for. One district judge in El Paso thought he could override the Commander-in-Chief on border security. The Supreme Court just told him he was wrong. Badly wrong.
This is what happens when you let activist judges run the show: cartels operate freely, drugs pour across the border, and the men and women of Border Patrol are left watching from the sidelines. Big Bend may only account for 1.3% of apprehensions, but that's not the point. The point is that every mile of open border is an invitation to human traffickers, fentanyl smugglers, and gang members who know exactly where the gaps are.
Notice the Left's reaction. No concern for the 89,000 people detained in that region. No concern for the Texas landowners whose property is being used as a smuggling corridor. Just outrage over desert habitat and canyon walls. Their priorities are clear—and they aren't yours.
The fight isn't over. The lawsuit continues, and the usual suspects will keep trying to tie this up in court. But Monday's ruling is a reminder: the Constitution put border security in the hands of the executive branch, not a single federal judge with an agenda.
Patriots, this is what winning looks like. The wall is going up. The only question now is how fast.
