The Supreme Court on Monday lifted an injunction that had halted construction of border barriers and related infrastructure in West Texas. In an 8-1 unsigned decision in *Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church*, the justices cleared the way for work to resume in the Big Bend region, overturning a U.S. District Judge's order. This ruling represents a significant development for the administration's ongoing efforts to enhance border security.
"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." Laiken Jordahl, Center for Biological Diversity advocate
At the core of the case is Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. This federal statute grants the Homeland Security Secretary broad authority to construct barriers and roads in areas experiencing high levels of illegal entry. Congress subsequently strengthened this authority, adding language that permits the Secretary "to waive all legal requirements" deemed necessary for the "expeditious construction" of border barriers. The statute also imposes strict limits on the extent to which federal courts can review challenges to these waivers.
Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security utilized this waiver power to accelerate construction efforts in the Big Bend sector, a vast area spanning approximately 517 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. This move drew immediate legal challenges from environmental groups, local residents, and other opponents, including Friends of the Ruidosa Church, the Center for Biological Diversity, and river guide Danny William Miller Jr. Plaintiffs raised concerns about potential impacts on wildlife, public lands, tourism, and the Rio Grande.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone, a George W. Bush appointee, initially sided with the challengers. She questioned whether Congress had explicitly authorized the government to disregard such a wide array of environmental regulations. Judge Cardone also highlighted that the Big Bend area accounts for a relatively small percentage of illegal border apprehensions compared to other southern border regions. The challengers' arguments largely rested on the "major questions doctrine," asserting that Congress must clearly authorize agencies to make decisions of vast economic and political significance.
However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected this line of reasoning. "There is no such thing as a ‘constitutional’ major-questions claim," the justices wrote, clarifying that the doctrine serves as a rule for interpreting statutes, and the plaintiffs’ claim instead alleged that the Secretary exceeded statutory authority. The majority also dismissed a second argument from the challengers, which contended that the administration needed to demonstrate a comparatively high level of illegal entries in Big Bend. The Court stated, "There is no such thing as ‘comparative high illegal entry’ in the statute."
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, argued before the high court that Judge Cardone’s order impeded the executive branch’s ability to secure the border. He further contended that the injunction contradicted the limits on judicial review established by Congress in the 1996 statute. The justices agreed with the government, concluding that the administration had met the requirements for emergency relief.
In their decision, the Court stated that stopping the project "impedes the Government from advancing its ‘compelling interests’ in border security and integrity." They further concluded that "The Government’s interest therefore outweighs any aesthetic, recreational, and environmental harm alleged by respondents." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, was the sole dissenter, indicating she would have denied the administration’s emergency application without offering a separate explanation for her position.
Opponents of the project voiced strong objections following the ruling. Laiken Jordahl, an advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, expressed dismay, stating, "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."
The administration justifies the need for additional barriers, roads, and surveillance infrastructure in the Big Bend region by citing illegal crossings and drug trafficking. They also argue that leaving significant gaps in this sector could divert smugglers and cartels toward Big Bend as other border sections are fortified. While the overall project calls for various types of barriers and technology, Customs and Border Protection has indicated it no longer intends to construct a 30-foot pedestrian wall inside Big Bend National Park, though roads, vehicle barriers, and surveillance infrastructure remain planned for the area. Construction can now proceed while the administration seeks further review of the underlying lawsuit by the Supreme Court.
