Trump asks Supreme Court to restart Big Bend border wall work
The administration wants the justices to stay a federal injunction against construction across Texas’s Big Bend sector and is also asking for summary reversal of the lower court’s decision.
The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 21, 2026, to let it resume border-wall construction in Texas’s Big Bend region while a legal challenge continues. The emergency application seeks a stay of a federal injunction that halted work across the Big Bend sector.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed the request in Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, docket No. 26A560, on behalf of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The administration also asked the justices to treat the application as a petition for review, grant it and summarily reverse the lower court.
What the administration is asking the court to do
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone issued a preliminary injunction on October 2 that barred border-barrier construction and related ground-disturbing work in the Big Bend sector unless the government complies with laws that DHS had waived. Cardone supplied a written explanation on October 14 and denied the government’s request to pause her order on October 21.
The Supreme Court filing says the usual federal appeals-court route is unavailable. The 1996 immigration law governing the waiver process provides that a district-court decision in this category may be reviewed only through a petition to the Supreme Court. The new application is therefore both an emergency request to restart work and a bid for rapid review of the injunction itself.
No justice had ruled on the request as of Wednesday evening. The docket says the application was submitted to Justice Samuel Alito, who handles emergency matters from the Fifth Circuit region and can act on it or refer it to the full court.
The dispute over DHS waiver authority
The case concerns three waivers issued in 2026 to accelerate roads and barriers in the Big Bend sector. According to the government’s filing, the projects include roughly 340 miles of planned barrier and road construction. DHS waived environmental, conservation and other legal requirements under authority it says Congress granted to speed construction in areas of high illegal entry.
The administration argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the challengers’ major-questions claim and that Congress expressly gave the homeland security secretary broad waiver power. Its application says Border Patrol apprehended more than 89,000 people in the sector from fiscal years 2021 through 2025 and argues that leaving the region without comparable infrastructure could redirect unlawful crossings and trafficking there. Those are the government’s arguments, not findings by the Supreme Court.
Friends of the Ruidosa Church, the Center for Biological Diversity and river guide Danny William Miller Jr. brought the case. Cardone concluded that they were likely to succeed on their argument that the Big Bend waivers exceeded the secretary’s authority because the statute addresses construction in areas of high illegal entry. Her opinion also credited evidence of possible environmental, economic, recreational and aesthetic harm from construction.
A project facing local and environmental opposition
The Associated Press reported that ranchers, residents, business owners and environmental groups have opposed a mix of walls, vehicle barriers and surveillance technology across the roughly 500-mile project area. Critics argue that the remote terrain has historically seen comparatively low levels of unauthorized migration and that construction could damage scenic landscapes, wildlife habitat and private property.
The government counters that Congress authorized the waivers and that stopping active contracts creates operational costs and security risks. The filing asks the justices to weigh those asserted harms against the challengers’ interests while the case proceeds. The application does not itself restart construction; the district court’s injunction remains in force unless the Supreme Court changes it.
The next formal step is a response from the challengers if the court requests one or sets a deadline. Any Supreme Court order on the stay would be an interim decision unless the justices also accept the administration’s request for review and summary reversal.
Sources and image credit
Primary records: Supreme Court docket for Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church (26A560) and the administration’s application for a stay.
Reporting and background: Associated Press via WTOP and an earlier Associated Press report on the Big Bend lawsuit.
Image: The Rio Grande in Big Bend National Park, photographed by Yinan Chen, via Wikimedia Commons; public domain. Center-cropped to 1600×900; no text added.