U.S. Supreme Court Allows Big Bend Border Wall Construction to Resume
Court Order Lets Construction Move Forward While the Legal Fight Continues
On November 9, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court paused the injunction that had stopped border wall construction across the Big Bend Sector. The order means the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can resume building while the case continues in the lower courts.
In October 2026, a federal judge halted Big Bend border wall construction in Texas, and on October 21, DHS asked the Supreme Court to lift the injunction. One possible outcome was a pause that would let construction resume. That is what the Court has now done.
How the Case Got Here
A 1996 immigration law, Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), lets the Secretary of Homeland Security build border barriers in areas of high illegal entry. It also lets the Secretary waive other federal laws to speed construction. Courts may hear only constitutional challenges to those waivers.
Earlier this year, DHS used that authority in the Big Bend Sector and waived a range of environmental and conservation laws. A river guide, an environmental nonprofit and a group working to preserve a historic church in Ruidosa, Texas, sued in federal court in El Paso. They argued the waivers violated the major questions doctrine under the Constitution.
On October 2, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone agreed the challenge could proceed and issued a preliminary injunction. Her order suspended the waivers and halted construction across the sector.
Why the Supreme Court Sided With DHS
The Court gave three reasons for pausing the injunction:
- The district court likely lacked jurisdiction. The Court said the major questions doctrine is a tool for interpreting statutes, not a constitutional claim. A claim that DHS exceeded its statutory authority is not a constitutional claim, however it is labeled, and Section 102 bars courts from hearing nonconstitutional claims. In the Court’s words, there is no such thing as a “constitutional” major-questions claim.
- The government faced irreparable harm. The Court pointed to the injunction’s delay of border-security work and to a Customs and Border Protection declaration that the government was incurring nearly half a million dollars a day in costs it could not recover.
- The balance of interests favored the government. By letting DHS waive environmental and conservation laws, Congress chose fast border construction over the aesthetic, recreational and environmental harms the plaintiffs described. The Court said judges cannot override that choice.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the request but did not write an opinion.
What’s Next
The injunction stays on hold while DHS asks the Supreme Court to substantively review the case. If the Court declines to take it, the pause ends automatically. If the Court takes the case, the pause lasts until it issues a final decision.
This order does not decide the case for good. It also does not address the separate lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C., in September by six landowners and Conserve Big Bend, which represents about 230 more landowners.
For landowners, the big picture has shifted. The injunction never stopped land acquisition, and federal agencies have said they plan to file eminent domain cases against owners who have not agreed to the project. With construction now allowed to resume, those cases may move faster.
Talk to a Texas Eminent Domain Attorney
If you own land in the Big Bend region, the time the injunction bought you may be running out. Before you respond to any offer or condemnation filing, understand how much land the government wants, what rights it is seeking and how the project would affect your river access, water, grazing and the value of the property you keep. Damage to the remainder of your property can be compensable.
Barron, Adler, Clough & Oddo, PLLC, represents Texas landowners in eminent domain and condemnation cases. Call us at 512-478-4995 or contact us to schedule a consultation.