Supreme Court Lets Big Bend Border Wall Construction Resume

Last updated: Monday, Nov. 9, 2026, 4:30 p.m. ET. This is a developing story. The Supreme Court's order is temporary and the underlying lawsuit is still pending.

The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for border wall construction to restart in the Big Bend region of West Texas, one of the most remote and scenic stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border.

The justices granted the Trump administration's emergency request and set aside an injunction from a federal judge in El Paso that had stopped the work, NBC News and Fox News reported. CBS News also reported the decision Monday afternoon.

What the Supreme Court ruled on the Big Bend border wall

The order was unsigned and ran five pages. According to NBC News, the court said the district judge had no authority to rule as she did and that the administration was "extremely likely to prevail" on that point. It also said the government has "compelling interests" when a challenged policy involves border security.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone justice to note a dissent. She indicated she would have denied the request but didn't file a written opinion, Fox News reported.

This isn't the end of the case. The ruling is a stay, which means construction can go ahead while the lawsuit continues in the lower courts.

How the case got here

The fight centers on three waivers. Then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem issued one in February, and her successor, Markwayne Mullin, issued two more in May and July, NBC reported. Those waivers let the government skip environmental and conservation laws that would otherwise slow construction.

On Oct. 2, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone threw out Noem's waivers, ruling that the secretary didn't have such sweeping power. She refused to put her decision on hold, and the administration went to the Supreme Court.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that Congress gave the government "broad authority" in 1996 to build border infrastructure without getting tied up in red tape. The challengers read that same 1996 law much more narrowly. They argue it allows only limited waivers, and only where illegal crossings are widespread.

Who is fighting the wall

Three plaintiffs brought the suit: the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group; Friends of the Ruidosa Church, a nonprofit restoring a historic church in the area; and Danny Miller, a river guide who owns property there.

Their lawyers warned that construction would "result in the permanent alteration of an irreplaceable landscape" and "threaten unique historic and cultural resources," according to NBC.

They also point to the numbers. Big Bend has the lowest count of migrant encounters of any stretch of the southern border, government data shows. Fox News, citing Reuters, reported that the Big Bend Sector covers more than 500 miles, roughly a quarter of the border, but accounted for just 1.3% of border apprehensions in 2025.

The administration sees it differently. It says 89,000 people have been detained trying to cross there in recent years, and officials have warned that if the rest of the wall is built and Big Bend stays open, smugglers will shift their routes there.

What gets built, and where

The government says the Big Bend project involves 341 miles of construction, and that includes Big Bend National Park. Inside the park, officials have described a 17-mile barrier that won't use the 30-foot steel pedestrian fencing going up elsewhere on the border, Fox reported. Most of the sector's construction would be on private land, according to administration officials.

Work had already started before the injunction. NBC published a Getty photo of an excavator clearing land near Santa Elena Canyon inside the park in August.

The project is part of a much larger push. Backed by funding from the Republican-controlled Congress, the administration wants to finish a roughly 2,000-mile line of steel panels, vehicle barriers and surveillance technology, NBC reported.

What we don't know yet

It's not clear how quickly crews will return to the Big Bend sites, or whether park access will change once they do. None of Monday's reports gave a restart date. The lawsuit itself goes on in the lower courts, and the order doesn't settle whether the waivers were legal.

This decision lands on a busy day in Washington, with Congress back for its first session since the midterms and a Hegseth impeachment vote now on the House calendar. For another recent fight over federal power in the courts, see our report on the Alaska Senate "two Dan Sullivans" lawsuit.

We'll update this story as the administration and the plaintiffs respond.