Supreme Court lets border construction resume in Texas's Big Bend while a waiver lawsuit continues; the Center for Biological Diversity condemns the order, and DHS's top lawyer welcomes it
On November 9, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed an injunction that had halted border barrier and road construction in Texas's Big Bend region. The plaintiffs and Ro Khanna condemned the order; DHS general counsel James Percival welcomed the 8-1 ruling.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
The Department of Homeland Security issued waivers of environmental and conservation laws for the Big Bend Sector in 2026, beginning in February, after finding it an area of high illegal entry. The sector covers more than a quarter of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Center for Biological Diversity says the waivers were the first time the government set aside a broad set of environmental laws inside a national park.
Contractors began work in Big Bend National Park in August, and Customs and Border Protection paused construction on August 17. On October 2, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone of the Western District of Texas blocked the waivers and halted construction, finding the challengers likely to succeed on their claim that Congress had not clearly authorized waivers for a sector with few migrant apprehensions. The Solicitor General then asked the Supreme Court to reverse or pause her order.
Opposition to the project crosses party lines. Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas argued against it in an op-ed published the day of the ruling.
People in this case
Markwayne MullinDirectly involved
Ro KhannaCommented
James PercivalCommented
D. John SauerCommented
Timeline
7 timeline entries on this page. Dates: February 17, 2026 to November 9, 2026
February 2026
DHS waives environmental laws for border construction in the Big Bend Sector
Claim
The Secretary of Homeland Security finds the Big Bend Sector an area of high illegal entry and waives a range of environmental and conservation laws to speed construction of barriers and roads. Later waivers extend the project.
[01]U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Notice of the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination waiving laws to speed construction of barriers and roads in the Big Bend Sector of Texas, published February 17, 2026.
Determination Pursuant to Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as Amended (91 FR 7297) · U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityFederal Register, Vol. 91, page 7297[02]Supreme Court of the United States
Unsigned Supreme Court opinion of November 9, 2026 granting the government's application to stay the district court's preliminary injunction on border construction in the Big Bend Sector and denying summary reversal. Justice Jackson would have denied the application.
Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, No. 26A560, per curiam opinion on application for stay · Supreme Court of the United StatesPer curiam opinion, pages 1 to 4[03]SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog report of November 9, 2026 on the Supreme Court's order in Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, with the background of the waivers, Judge Cardone's injunction and the parties' filings.
SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to continue border wall construction · SCOTUSblogArticle text
April 2026
Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Ruidosa Church and a river guide sue
The suit argues that the department is exercising waiver powers Congress never authorized.
[04]Center for Biological Diversity
Release of April 16, 2026 announcing the lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Ruidosa Church and a Big Bend-area river guide and landowner against the Department of Homeland Security's waivers.
Lawsuit Challenges Big Bend Border Wall Construction · Center for Biological DiversityPress release text
August 2026
Contractors begin work inside Big Bend National Park
Incident
Bulldozers begin cutting routes near Santa Elena Canyon and Mariscal Mountain. Customs and Border Protection pauses construction on August 17 after public criticism.
[05]Center for Biological Diversity
Release of November 9, 2026 by the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs, with statements by Laiken Jordahl and the group's account of construction in Big Bend National Park since August.
Supreme Court Clears Way for Border Wall Construction Across Big Bend · Center for Biological DiversityPress release text
October 2026
Judge Kathleen Cardone halts construction across the Big Bend Sector
The preliminary injunction bars construction until the government complies with environmental and other applicable laws. Cardone finds the challengers likely to succeed on their major-questions claim.
[03]SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog report of November 9, 2026 on the Supreme Court's order in Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, with the background of the waivers, Judge Cardone's injunction and the parties' filings.
SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to continue border wall construction · SCOTUSblogArticle text[02]Supreme Court of the United States
Unsigned Supreme Court opinion of November 9, 2026 granting the government's application to stay the district court's preliminary injunction on border construction in the Big Bend Sector and denying summary reversal. Justice Jackson would have denied the application.
Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, No. 26A560, per curiam opinion on application for stay · Supreme Court of the United StatesPer curiam opinion, pages 1 to 4Solicitor General asks the Supreme Court to reverse or pause the injunction
The government argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction and that Congress clearly authorized the waivers.
[06]United States Department of Justice
The Solicitor General's application of October 21, 2026 asking the Supreme Court to summarily reverse, or stay, Judge Kathleen Cardone's preliminary injunction against border construction in the Big Bend Sector.
Application to stay the injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church · United States Department of JusticeApplication, Part II, page 20[03]SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog report of November 9, 2026 on the Supreme Court's order in Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, with the background of the waivers, Judge Cardone's injunction and the parties' filings.
SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to continue border wall construction · SCOTUSblogArticle text
November 2026
Supreme Court pauses the injunction, with Justice Jackson dissenting
In an unsigned opinion, the Court says the government is very likely to show that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the major-questions claim, and lets construction resume while the case continues.
[02]Supreme Court of the United States
Unsigned Supreme Court opinion of November 9, 2026 granting the government's application to stay the district court's preliminary injunction on border construction in the Big Bend Sector and denying summary reversal. Justice Jackson would have denied the application.
Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, No. 26A560, per curiam opinion on application for stay · Supreme Court of the United StatesPer curiam opinion, pages 1 to 4[03]SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog report of November 9, 2026 on the Supreme Court's order in Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, with the background of the waivers, Judge Cardone's injunction and the parties' filings.
SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to continue border wall construction · SCOTUSblogArticle text[07]Associated Press
Associated Press report of November 9, 2026, published by WBTV, on the Supreme Court's order and reactions from the Center for Biological Diversity, a Big Bend landowner and Sen. John Cornyn's op-ed.
AP: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to resume building border wall in Texas's Big Bend · Associated PressArticle textPlaintiffs condemn the order; DHS's general counsel welcomes it
Reaction
The Center for Biological Diversity calls the order horrific. DHS general counsel James Percival calls it an 8-1 win.
[05]Center for Biological Diversity
Release of November 9, 2026 by the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs, with statements by Laiken Jordahl and the group's account of construction in Big Bend National Park since August.
Supreme Court Clears Way for Border Wall Construction Across Big Bend · Center for Biological DiversityPress release text[08]James Percival
Post by DHS general counsel James Percival from the department's general counsel account, quoting his own October 21 post that called the district court's order unprecedented and flawed.
James Percival's post on the Supreme Court order on border wall construction · James PercivalPost on X, November 9, 2026, 3:29 p.m. EST, quoting his post of October 21, 2026[07]Associated Press
Associated Press report of November 9, 2026, published by WBTV, on the Supreme Court's order and reactions from the Center for Biological Diversity, a Big Bend landowner and Sen. John Cornyn's op-ed.
AP: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to resume building border wall in Texas's Big Bend · Associated PressArticle text
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
The Big Bend Sector of the U.S.-Mexico border is an area of high illegal entry that requires additional border barriers and roads.
What is disputed
The Secretary of Homeland Security's waiver determinations rest on this finding, and federal lawyers told the Supreme Court that there are illegal crossings and drug seizures in Big Bend. Judge Kathleen Cardone found that the sector covers more than 25% of the border but accounts for between 0.3% and 2.2% of migrants apprehended, and the Center for Biological Diversity says it saw 1.3% of border apprehensions in 2025.
Sources (5)
- Determination Pursuant to Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as Amended (91 FR 7297) · U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityFederal Register, Vol. 91, page 7297
- Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, No. 26A560, per curiam opinion on application for stay · Supreme Court of the United StatesPer curiam opinion, pages 1 to 4
- SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to continue border wall construction · SCOTUSblogArticle text
- AP: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to resume building border wall in Texas's Big Bend · Associated PressArticle text
- Supreme Court Clears Way for Border Wall Construction Across Big Bend · Center for Biological DiversityPress release text
Disputed claim
Congress clearly authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security both to build border barriers and to waive legal requirements to speed their construction, so the Big Bend waivers raise no major-questions problem.
What is disputed
The challengers argue that waiving federal, state, local and tribal laws across the Big Bend region, including national and state parks, is an extraordinary assertion of power that Congress did not clearly authorize, and Judge Cardone found them likely to succeed. The Supreme Court did not decide this question. It held that the government was very likely to show the district court lacked jurisdiction over the claim.
Sources (3)
- Application to stay the injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church · United States Department of JusticeApplication, Part II, page 20
- SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to continue border wall construction · SCOTUSblogArticle text
- Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, No. 26A560, per curiam opinion on application for stay · Supreme Court of the United StatesPer curiam opinion, pages 1 to 4
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
4 responses. Newest first.
Ro KhannaU.S. representative from California, posting on XBefore this statement
Khanna posted the evening of the Supreme Court's order, which paused a federal judge's injunction against construction in the Big Bend region.
"The Supreme Court let the bulldozers back into Big Bend National Park today. It's Stephen Miller's first day as chief of staff. Texas ranchers oppose this wall. A Bush-appointed judge blocked it. In January, Democrats run Congress. I will vote to cut off every dollar for it."
CondemnedCase context: Supreme Court lets border construction resume in Texas's Big Bend while a waiver lawsuit continues; the Center for Biological Diversity condemns the order, and DHS's top lawyer welcomes it
Full statement and sources
Khanna says the Supreme Court let the bulldozers back into Big Bend National Park, that Texas ranchers oppose the wall and a Bush-appointed judge blocked it, and that he will vote to cut off its funding.
After the statement
The order pauses the injunction while the case plays out and does not decide the lawsuit.
Ro Khanna's post on the Supreme Court order on Big Bend construction · Ro KhannaPost on X, November 9, 2026, 8:04 p.m. ESTAP: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to resume building border wall in Texas's Big Bend · Associated PressArticle textWhy this label?
The reference point is the federal government's border barrier and road construction in Texas's Big Bend region under DHS waivers of environmental laws, which the Supreme Court allowed to resume on November 9, 2026. Khanna opposes the wall and pledges to vote against funding it, which condemns the construction.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
James PercivalGeneral counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, posting on XBefore this statement
Percival's post quotes his own October 21 post, which said the president received a mandate to build a wall and that the secretary's authority to build it is clear as day.
"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."
Defended or excusedCase context: Supreme Court lets border construction resume in Texas's Big Bend while a waiver lawsuit continues; the Center for Biological Diversity condemns the order, and DHS's top lawyer welcomes it
Full statement and sources
Percival recalls calling the district court's order halting wall construction unprecedented and flawed when the government went to the Supreme Court, and says the government just won 8-1.
After the statement
The Supreme Court's opinion said the injunction kept the government from advancing its interests in border security and cost it nearly half a million dollars a day.
James Percival's post on the Supreme Court order on border wall construction · James PercivalPost on X, November 9, 2026, 3:29 p.m. EST, quoting his post of October 21, 2026James Percival's post on the district court's Big Bend injunction · James PercivalPost on X, October 21, 2026, 7:36 p.m. EDTSCOTUSblog: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to continue border wall construction · SCOTUSblogArticle textWhy this label?
The reference point is the federal government's border barrier and road construction in Texas's Big Bend region under DHS waivers of environmental laws, which the Supreme Court allowed to resume on November 9, 2026. Percival celebrates the order that lets construction resume and repeats his criticism of the injunction, which defends the construction.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Center for Biological DiversityEnvironmental group and plaintiff, in a statement by national public lands advocate Laiken JordahlDirectly involved Before this statement
The Center for Biological Diversity is one of the plaintiffs whose lawsuit led to the October 2 injunction that the Supreme Court paused.
"The Trump administration and its contractors are hellbent on destroying one of America’s greatest national parks, and the Supreme Court just gave them the green light ... 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."
CondemnedCase context: Supreme Court lets border construction resume in Texas's Big Bend while a waiver lawsuit continues; the Center for Biological Diversity condemns the order, and DHS's top lawyer welcomes it
Full statement and sources
Laiken Jordahl of the Center for Biological Diversity, a plaintiff, says the administration and its contractors are bent on destroying a national park and that the order lets them bulldoze desert and dynamite canyon walls before the courts decide whether the work is legal.
After the statement
Jordahl says the administration is signing off on the permanent destruction of the wildest place in Texas and the theft of a great American river.
Supreme Court Clears Way for Border Wall Construction Across Big Bend · Center for Biological DiversityPress release textAP: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to resume building border wall in Texas's Big Bend · Associated PressArticle textWhy this label?
The reference point is the federal government's border barrier and road construction in Texas's Big Bend region under DHS waivers of environmental laws, which the Supreme Court allowed to resume on November 9, 2026. The Center calls the order horrific and the construction destruction of a national park, which condemns it.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
D. John SauerSolicitor General of the United States, in the government's application to the Supreme CourtBefore this statement
Sauer first argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction, because the law allows only constitutional claims against the secretary's waiver decisions.
"This is no major-questions case. Even assuming that the Secretary’s waiver authority implicates a question of “vast economic and political significance,” Congress did clearly authorize the Secretary both to build border barriers and to waive legal requirements in order to facilitate their expeditious construction."
Defended or excusedResponding to: Congress clearly authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security both to build border barriers and to waive legal requirements to speed their construction, so the Big Bend waivers raise no major-questions problem.
Full statement and sources
In the government's application, Sauer argues that even if the waiver power raises a question of vast significance, Congress clearly authorized the secretary to build border barriers and waive legal requirements to speed their construction.
After the statement
The application cites Section 102 of the 1996 immigration law, which directs the department to build barriers and roads in areas of high illegal entry and lets the secretary waive legal requirements to speed construction.
Application to stay the injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church · United States Department of JusticeApplication, Part II, page 20Why this label?
The reference point is the federal government's border barrier and road construction in Texas's Big Bend region under DHS waivers of environmental laws, which the Supreme Court allowed to resume on November 9, 2026. Sauer argues that the waivers behind the construction are lawful and asks the Court to let the work proceed, which defends the construction.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(10)
Original text
Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, No. 26A560, per curiam opinion on application for stay
Relevant passage: Per curiam opinion, pages 1 to 4
About this source
Unsigned Supreme Court opinion of November 9, 2026 granting the government's application to stay the district court's preliminary injunction on border construction in the Big Bend Sector and denying summary reversal. Justice Jackson would have denied the application.
- Author
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
James Percival's post on the district court's Big Bend injunction
About this source
Post by DHS general counsel James Percival from the department's general counsel account on the day the government asked the Supreme Court to lift the Big Bend injunction.
- Author
- James Percival
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Determination Pursuant to Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as Amended (91 FR 7297)
Relevant passage: Federal Register, Vol. 91, page 7297
About this source
Notice of the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination waiving laws to speed construction of barriers and roads in the Big Bend Sector of Texas, published February 17, 2026.
- Author
- Department of Homeland Security
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
James Percival's post on the Supreme Court order on border wall construction
About this source
Post by DHS general counsel James Percival from the department's general counsel account, quoting his own October 21 post that called the district court's order unprecedented and flawed.
- Author
- James Percival
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Ro Khanna's post on the Supreme Court order on Big Bend construction
About this source
Post on X by Rep. Ro Khanna of California the evening of the Supreme Court's order.
- Author
- Ro Khanna
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Lawsuit Challenges Big Bend Border Wall Construction
Relevant passage: Press release text
About this source
Release of April 16, 2026 announcing the lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Ruidosa Church and a Big Bend-area river guide and landowner against the Department of Homeland Security's waivers.
- Author
- Center for Biological Diversity
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Supreme Court Clears Way for Border Wall Construction Across Big Bend
Relevant passage: Press release text
About this source
Release of November 9, 2026 by the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs, with statements by Laiken Jordahl and the group's account of construction in Big Bend National Park since August.
- Author
- Center for Biological Diversity
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
AP: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to resume building border wall in Texas's Big Bend
Relevant passage: Article text
About this source
Associated Press report of November 9, 2026, published by WBTV, on the Supreme Court's order and reactions from the Center for Biological Diversity, a Big Bend landowner and Sen. John Cornyn's op-ed.
- Author
- Rebecca Santana and Lindsay Whitehurst
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to continue border wall construction
Relevant passage: Article text
About this source
SCOTUSblog report of November 9, 2026 on the Supreme Court's order in Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, with the background of the waivers, Judge Cardone's injunction and the parties' filings.
- Author
- Amy Howe
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Application to stay the injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church
Relevant passage: Application, Part II, page 20
About this source
The Solicitor General's application of October 21, 2026 asking the Supreme Court to summarily reverse, or stay, Judge Kathleen Cardone's preliminary injunction against border construction in the Big Bend Sector.
- Author
- D. John Sauer, Solicitor General
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Supreme Court lets border construction resume in Texas's Big Bend while a waiver lawsuit continues; the Center for Biological Diversity condemns the order, and DHS's top lawyer welcomes it
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/big-bend-border-wall-supreme-court-stay
The Dispute Index. "Supreme Court lets border construction resume in Texas's Big Bend while a waiver lawsuit continues; the Center for Biological Diversity condemns the order, and DHS's top lawyer welcomes it". First published: 2026-11-12. Last updated: 2026-11-13. https://disputeindex.com/cases/big-bend-border-wall-supreme-court-stay