On Monday, November 9, the US Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's emergency request to suspend a federal district court order that had temporarily stopped border wall construction in Texas's Big Bend region.

In an unsigned ruling, the justices said the government is 'exceedingly likely to prevail' on its argument that the lower court lacked authority to hear the challengers' claim, and that the government's border security interest outweighs the 'aesthetic, recreational, and environmental harm' alleged.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissent. The ruling is not a final decision on the legality of the environmental waivers — the underlying lawsuit continues.

On October 2, US District Judge Kathleen Cardone had barred construction until the government complied with environmental laws, reasoning the challengers were likely to prevail because DHS Secretary lacked authority to issue sweeping waivers.

SCOTUSblog reports she emphasized that the Big Bend sector comprises over 25% of the US-Mexico border but only between 0.3% and 2.2% of migrant apprehensions, undercutting the government's 'high illegal entry' designation.

The Supreme Court paused that injunction rather than summarily reversing it, meaning the legal fight over the waivers is far from over.

The administration relies on a 1996 law letting the homeland security secretary 'waive all legal requirements,' including environmental protections, in designated high-crossing areas.

According to SCOTUSblog, then-Secretary Kristi Noem and successor Markwayne Mullin issued three waivers to fast-track construction.

The Center for Biological Diversity says the waivers marked the first time in US history the government swept aside a broad slate of environmental laws — including the Endangered Species Act, National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and National Park Service Organic Act — inside a national park.

According to the Guardian, the administration plans more than 300 miles of six-foot-tall vehicle barriers and supporting roads in the Big Bend sector, with Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott saying the wall is being built at about 12 miles a week and is expected to be completed by the end of Trump's second term.

CBP has awarded five contracts worth more than $6bn for Big Bend border upgrades including 30-foot steel fencing and surveillance technology the agency calls its 'smart wall.' NBC News reports the government cites 341 miles of construction in the disputed segment.

Plaintiffs — the Center for Biological Diversity, a river guide landowner, and Friends of the Ruidosa Church — argue the project threatens wildlife, could destroy 'iconic sections' of the Rio Grande's protected corridor, and requires dynamite blasting in remote canyons where no unauthorized vehicle crossings have been documented.

The Center says the Big Bend sector saw just 1.3% of total border apprehensions in 2025, and 0.045% inside the park itself.

More than 140 outfitters, businesses and recreation groups warn permanent barriers and roads through the canyon corridor could put river outfitters out of business and devastate the regional economy.

The Center for Biological Diversity condemned the decision, 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,' and predicting public opposition will only grow if bulldozers return.

The Center for Biological Diversity also notes Texas Senator John Cornyn voiced opposition to wall construction through Big Bend in an op-ed published the same day.

With the injunction suspended while the lawsuit proceeds, construction can resume immediately even though a final ruling on the waivers' legality has not been issued.