Supreme Court lets border-barrier work resume in Texas’s Big Bend while the case continues

Created: 2026-11-10T06:45:33-05:00 (America/New_York)
Last updated: 2026-11-10T06:45:33-05:00 (America/New_York)

The order turned on whether a federal judge had jurisdiction to block the waivers at all. None of 56 headlines said so; 31 put Trump in the headline and 10 the national park.

The Supreme Court on Monday, Nov. 9, granted the government’s request to pause a federal judge’s injunction that had halted border-barrier and road construction in the region Customs and Border Protection calls the Big Bend Sector of West Texas. The unsigned order in Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, No. 26A560, keeps the stay in place until the Court acts on a petition for review. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied it (docket).

What the record shows

• The law: Section 102 of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act lets the Homeland Security secretary “waive all legal requirements” needed for fast border-barrier construction. It allows only constitutional claims, and courts “shall not have jurisdiction” over other claims (per curiam, p. 1).
• The waivers: The secretary found the Big Bend Sector to be “an area of high illegal entry” and waived a range of environmental and conservation laws. NBC reports three waivers, from Kristi Noem in February and Markwayne Mullin in May and July, covering about 341 miles of construction that includes Big Bend National Park.
• The challengers: A river guide, an environmental nonprofit and a group preserving a historic church in Ruidosa, Texas, sued in the Western District of Texas. They argued the waivers violated the “major questions doctrine.” On Oct. 2, the district court enjoined the waivers and all related construction, holding that the doctrine is a constitutional rule (per curiam, p. 2).
• The Court’s reasoning: “However it is labeled,” the claim “alleges instead that the Secretary exceeded his statutory authority,” so the district court lacked jurisdiction, and the government is “exceedingly likely to prevail” on that point. The order says the injunction “impedes the Government from advancing its ‘compelling interests’ in border security” (per curiam; NPR). Because the statute bars an appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the solicitor general went straight to the Supreme Court.
• What it does not decide: The order is a stay, not a ruling on the merits of the waivers or on the environmental effects. The stay ends automatically if the Court denies review (docket).

How we counted: Google News search for the Supreme Court, the border wall and Big Bend, Nov. 9–10, duplicates removed by outlet and title, keeping headlines on the order. That gave 56 headlines. 31 named Trump; 10 mentioned the park (8 said “national park”); 5 said region, area or West Texas; 9 used words like “horrific,” “destruction,” “at risk” or “backlash” (several from advocacy groups that were parties or allies); 5 mentioned the pause, stay or temporary nature; 1 gave the 8–1 split; none mentioned jurisdiction. The Guardian’s version was No. 4 on the signed-out Google News Top and U.S. feeds this morning, and it was the scout’s No. 1 cluster with 18 outlets.

The headlines made this a Trump win in a national park. The order itself is narrower. It is about which court can hear what: Congress limited judges to constitutional claims, and the justices found that the plaintiffs’ “constitutional” claim was a statutory one by another name. Only one justice dissented. The order does not say the wall is good policy or that the environmental concerns are wrong. It says this judge could not stop the waivers on this claim, for now.

What questions the legacy media missed

• Why 8–1? The vote line was in one headline. The jurisdiction rule, which explains it, was in none.
• Is it the park, or the sector? The waivers cover CBP’s Big Bend Sector, a much larger area. NBC says the project includes the national park. Exactly where barriers or roads go inside the park is TBD.
• What is left for the challengers? Under the statute, only real constitutional claims can go forward. Whether any remain is TBD.
• Who is suing? A river guide and two nonprofits. Several of the strongest headline words came from groups on their side.

Primary sources

• Supreme Court: per curiam order, No. 26A560 (Nov. 9)
• Supreme Court: docket, No. 26A560
• NBC News: waivers and the 341-mile project
• NPR: the order’s “compelling interests” language

How outlets framed it

Outlet headlines from today’s scout and searches — their words, not ours.

• The Guardian: “US supreme court clears way for Trump’s border wall in Texas’s Big Bend”
• Reuters: “Supreme Court allows Trump border wall at Big Bend National Park in Texas”
• NPR: “Supreme Court says border wall construction can continue in West Texas”
• Fox News: “SCOTUS allows Trump admin to temporarily resume border construction in Texas’ Big Bend”
• KFOX: “Supreme Court rules 8-1 to restart Big Bend border wall work despite lawsuit”
• Courthouse News: “Yielding to Trump, Supreme Court bulldozes barriers to Big Bend border wall”
• Yahoo: “Supreme Court allows Trump administration to build border barrier in Big Bend National Park despite bipartisan backlash”
• USA Today: “‘Horrific decision’: These Texans bashed the Supreme Court’s Big Bend ruling”