Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow Big Bend border wall construction

As of 10:54 p.m. ET, Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2026

The Trump administration on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to stay a federal judge's injunction that halted border wall construction in the Big Bend region of West Texas, according to the court's docket and the government's application.

The application in Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, No. 26A560, was docketed Oct. 21 and submitted to Justice Samuel Alito, the docket shows. Solicitor General D. John Sauer is counsel of record for Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The application calls the lower court's order "a baseless injunction that halts a major portion of the construction of the border wall."

Besides a stay, the government asks the justices to treat the application as a petition for review, grant it and summarily reverse the district court. The application says an appeal to a federal appeals court is not available, because the law allows the district court's injunction to be "reviewed only upon petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States."

What the judge ordered

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone of the Western District of Texas in El Paso granted a preliminary injunction on Oct. 2 after an evidentiary hearing, according to her order. It bars the government from building "border barrier or related infrastructure, or engag[ing] in any construction or ground disturbing activities, in the Big Bend Sector until and unless Defendants comply with all applicable laws," and stays the effect of three waivers of environmental and other laws that DHS issued in 2026.

Cardone's written opinion, issued Oct. 14, says the waivers cover "a 517-mile stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border" that includes Big Bend National Park, Big Bend Ranch State Park and other public and private land in Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Presidio, Brewster, Terrell and Val Verde counties. The government's application says the waivers facilitated construction of border walls and roads "spanning over 300 miles," and says the injunction shut down "about 340 miles of planned barrier and road construction."

The plaintiffs are Friends of the Ruidosa Church, a group dedicated to preserving a historic church in Ruidosa, Texas; the Center for Biological Diversity; and a Big Bend river guide, according to the filings. Cardone found they were likely to win their claim that the waivers exceeded the secretary's authority under the major questions doctrine. The law lets the secretary waive legal requirements to build barriers "to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry," and Cardone wrote that "the evidence shows that the Big Bend Sector has the lowest rate of illegal entry along the entire U.S.-Mexico border."

In an order signed Oct. 20, Cardone denied the government's request to pause the injunction while it sought Supreme Court review. "If Defendants ultimately prevail on the merits, they can resume construction," she wrote. "But if Defendants are allowed to proceed with construction and Plaintiffs ultimately prevail on the merits, then both the natural landscape and Plaintiffs' ability to put it to their preferred uses will have been forever altered."

What the government argues

The government argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction, because the 1996 immigration law allows challenges to the waivers only if they allege a violation of the Constitution. "As this Court has long held, claims that an agency exceeded its statutory authority are not constitutional claims," the application says. It also argues that Congress clearly gave the secretary power to build barriers and waive laws to speed construction. "This is no major-questions case," it says.

The application says that between fiscal years 2021 and 2025, CBP apprehended more than 89,000 people trying to enter the country illegally in the Big Bend Sector. It argues the injunction would leave a gap that would act "as a dangerous magnet for cartels and other bad actors to exploit as other routes close off." It also says CBP estimates suspension costs on its construction contracts "will total over $460,000 per day."

The application says the only barrier construction planned inside Big Bend National Park is a 17-mile non-contiguous vehicle barrier system, and that no barrier construction is planned in Big Bend Ranch State Park. "Until now, no court has ever sustained a challenge to the substance of a Secretary's Section 102(c) waiver decision," it says.

Reaction

DHS General Counsel James Percival wrote in a post on X: "The Secretary's authority to build that wall is clear as day, as reflected in DHS's consistent court victories in similar cases. The court's order is as unprecedented as it is flawed, and we look forward to the Supreme Court's expeditious consideration of this important question."

Laiken Jordahl, a public lands advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs, wrote in a post on X that DHS "has requested the Supreme Court to step in and allow bulldozers to resume tearing into Big Bend National Park." Jordahl added: "We will fight this horrific attack on this crown jewel national park and the whole Big Bend region every step of the way."

When the injunction was issued on Oct. 2, the center called it "a historic victory for Big Bend and everyone who loves this wild corner of Texas" in a statement quoting Jordahl. The center said the plaintiffs are represented by attorneys at the Center for Biological Diversity and the Texas Civil Rights Project.

What is not known

The plaintiffs had not filed a response at the Supreme Court as of the docket's latest entry, and the docket does not show a date for one. It is not known when the court will act on the request.