
The U.S. Supreme Court on November 9, 2026 issued a short, unsigned opinion that temporarily halted a district court order stopping construction of a border wall in the Big Bend region of southwestern Texas. The Court did not overturn the lower‑court ruling but allowed the government to keep building while the legal fight continues.
Justices voted to put on hold the injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone, which had barred the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from continuing work until the agency complied with environmental and other laws. The Court said the government is “exceedingly likely” to succeed on its claim that the judge lacked authority to consider a major‑questions‑doctrine challenge, and therefore the stay was warranted.
Source: SCOTUSblog
Earlier this year, then‑Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and her successor Markwayne Mullin issued three waivers that let DHS ignore a range of environmental and conservation statutes for the wall project. They relied on a 1996 immigration law that permits the secretary to waive legal requirements to ensure “expeditious construction” of border barriers. Plaintiffs – an environmental group, a river‑guide landowner, and a church‑preservation group – argued the waivers exceeded the secretary’s statutory authority.
The decision means construction activities such as blasting, bulldozing, and road building can continue in the remote Big Bend area, which includes parts of a national park. Residents, tourists, and local businesses should expect ongoing disruption and possible environmental impacts. There is no new deadline announced, but the stay will remain in effect until the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the full case.
The government may seek a full review of Judge Cardone’s order. The plaintiffs can continue to argue that the waivers violate the major‑questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for actions of great economic or political significance. If the Court eventually rules against the waivers, construction could be halted again.
Anyone directly affected – such as landowners near the construction site or visitors to the park – should monitor further court filings and consider consulting an attorney if they face property damage or other legal issues.
Ordinary people in the Big Bend area should expect ongoing wall‑related activity until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling.
Environmental groups warn that resumed work could harm the region’s ecosystems, but the Court weighed those concerns against government costs.
The decision signals that courts may limit lower‑court rulings that rely on the major‑questions doctrine without clear congressional language.
The administration avoids daily losses of about half a million dollars by keeping construction going, according to the Court’s finding.
If the Court later decides to hear the full case, the wall project could be halted again, affecting workers and local economies.
Landowners or businesses impacted by construction should consider legal counsel to protect property rights and address any damages.
This article is general information based on SCOTUSblog and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published November 9, 2026.
Source: SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has cleared the way for border wall construction in Texas's Big Bend region, overturning a judge's order that halted the work.
The DOJ asked the Supreme Court’s emergency docket to lift a district court injunction blocking a border barrier in the sparsely populated Big Bend area, arguing urgent harm despite low apprehension rates.
Environmental groups and a landowner petition the Supreme Court to leave a district judge's order stopping Trump-era wall work in Big Bend, Texas, citing major‑questions doctrine concerns.
Reading about the law is one thing, applying it to your own case is another. Browse verified attorneys in Texas by practice area.