The Supreme Court on Monday, Nov. 9, allowed the Trump administration to resume border barrier construction in the Big Bend region of Texas while litigation continues. The decision dealt a setback to opponents from both political parties who say the project would damage the desert landscape and undermine local livelihoods without providing a worthwhile improvement in border security.
The majority concluded that federal law severely restricts judicial intervention when the government determines that border barriers need to be built quickly. It suspended a Texas judge’s order stopping construction-related work in the region, which encompasses Big Bend National Park and state and private property along the river. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. The lower court judge had found that Congress likely had not clearly authorized such extensive regulatory waivers in the area, which has the southern border’s lowest rate of migrant apprehensions.
The administration sought emergency relief, arguing that illegal crossings and drug seizures occur in Big Bend and that leaving an opening could divert more border traffic there. Customs and Border Protection chief Rodney Scott told The Associated Press he believed cartels would quickly overrun the region if it lacked border infrastructure while other stretches received additional fortifications.
The construction is part of President Donald Trump’s longstanding effort to build a wall between the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. Congressional Republicans provided $46 billion for the project last summer. Customs and Border Protection has been installing 12 miles of barriers weekly across the border, seeking eventually to cover its entire 2,000 miles through a combination of steel walls reaching 30 feet, vehicle barriers and surveillance technology. The administration has waived regulations intended to protect the environment to accelerate the work.
Big Bend opponents, including landowners, business owners and environmental groups, argue that barriers would harm the region’s economy and way of life despite historically low levels of illegal immigration. They favor surveillance tools such as drones. The agency has faced strong resistance from property owners over access for surveying and construction. It did not immediately answer questions about when work could restart on an initial wall section halted by the judge’s order in the roughly 500-mile region.
The Center for Biological Diversity brought the construction challenge with Friends of the Ruidosa Church and a local river guide. Laiken Jordahl, the center’s national public lands advocate, warned that work could permanently damage desert and canyon landscapes before courts resolve its legality. David Keller, a Conserve Big Bend board member involved in a separate landowners’ lawsuit, described the ruling as devastating. “Everything is on the line again,” he said.
Criticism also came from outgoing Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. In an opinion article published Monday by the San Antonio Express-News before the ruling, Cornyn argued that modern technology, sufficient staffing and cooperation with local officials and property owners would provide a more effective approach than unnecessary barrier construction.
Work inside Big Bend National Park was paused by the government in August after bulldozers breaking ground prompted outrage. Officials have repeatedly said the park would not receive steel walls, although preliminary proposals included a road and some vehicle barriers. Customs and Border Protection has told the courts it will produce a final construction plan for the park, but had not done so while the dispute was before the Supreme Court.
