Supreme Court Lets Big Bend Border Wall Work Resume, Says 'There Is No Such Thing as a Constitutional Major-Questions Claim'

The Supreme Court on Monday let the Trump administration resume building border barriers and roads in Texas's Big Bend region while a legal challenge goes on. The challengers say that includes work inside Big Bend National Park. The Digital Free Press read the court's five-page unsigned opinion in Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, No. 26A560, and the government's application that led to it.

The court granted the government's request to pause an Oct. 2 injunction from a federal judge in Texas. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that she would have denied the request. She did not write a dissent, and no other justice noted a disagreement.

What the Big Bend Border Wall Case Is About

A 1996 immigration law lets the secretary of homeland security build barriers and roads "to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry" and "waive all legal requirements" needed to build them quickly. The same law allows only constitutional claims against those waivers, and the opinion notes that the Fifth Circuit has no jurisdiction over the case, which is why the government went straight to the Supreme Court.

In 2026 the secretary issued three waivers for what Customs and Border Protection calls the Big Bend Sector. The government's application says the sector includes 517 miles of Rio Grande riverfront, almost a quarter of the southwest border, and that the waivers cover construction spanning more than 300 miles. It quotes the waivers as saying the Border Patrol apprehended more than 89,000 people crossing illegally between ports of entry in the sector from 2021 to 2025.

A river guide, the Center for Biological Diversity and a group that preserves a historic church in Ruidosa, Texas, sued. They argued the waivers violate the "major questions doctrine," which they framed as a constitutional claim. The district court agreed that the claim was constitutional and blocked the waivers. The application says the judge also found that apprehensions in Big Bend are comparatively lower than in other sectors.

What the Supreme Court Said

The justices said the government is "exceedingly likely to prevail" because the lower court lacked jurisdiction. "There is no such thing as a 'constitutional' major-questions claim," the opinion says. It describes the challengers' claim as one that "alleges instead that the Secretary exceeded his statutory authority," a type of claim the law does not allow.

The court also pointed to money. It cited a declaration from a CBP official saying the injunction was costing the government nearly half a million dollars a day that "cannot be recouped." The application put that figure at more than $460,000 a day, for land leases, offices and security while contractors wait.

On the balance of harms, the opinion says that by allowing the waivers Congress showed "a clear preference for expeditious border construction over the very harms respondents assert," and that the government's interest "outweighs any aesthetic, recreational, and environmental harm."

What Happens Next

The order keeps the injunction on hold while the government asks the Supreme Court to take up the case. If the court declines, the pause ends automatically. It is not a final ruling on whether the waivers are lawful, a point the Center for Biological Diversity also made in its statement.

The center called the decision "horrific," saying it "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 center says construction began near Santa Elena Canyon on Aug. 6 and that CBP paused work on Aug. 17.

Sources: Per curiam opinion, Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, No. 26A560 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2026) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/26pdf/26a560_onkq.pdf); Supreme Court docket, No. 26A560 (https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26a560.html); Application for a stay, filed Oct. 21, 2026 (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26A560/430290/20261021153649084_Ruidosa_Application_Final.pdf); Center for Biological Diversity statement, Nov. 9, 2026 (https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/supreme-court-clears-way-for-border-wall-construction-across-big-bend-2026-11-09/). Cover photo: Santa Elena Canyon on the Rio Grande, Big Bend National Park, Texas, by Ken Lund, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0).