Supreme Court Lets Trump Resume Big Bend Border Work
Is fast wall construction in Big Bend a lawful security necessity or a costly threat to rare wilderness?
Story
Above: Protesters in Study Butte, Texas on Aug. 15. Image credit: Ronaldo Schemidt/AFP/Getty Images
The Facts
- The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Monday to let the Trump administration resume border barrier construction in the Big Bend region while litigation continues. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice to publicly oppose lifting the lower court's order.
- Monday's unsigned order found the administration was highly likely to prevail on its claim that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the challengers' major-questions argument. The court stayed the injunction but did not summarily reverse the lower ruling.
- As of Monday, the Big Bend Sector spans more than 500 miles (805 km) of the U.S.-Mexico border. Officials said the national park was slated for 17 miles of vehicle barriers rather than 30-foot (9.1 meters) pedestrian fencing, while updated park plans would be released later.
Sources Split
LEFT
CENTER
RIGHT
+1
+1
+1
+1
ESTAB
CRIT
CENTER
PRO
ESTAB
The Spin
Republican narrative
Congress gave Homeland Security broad waiver power for a reason — Border gaps invite cartels, squander public money through delays and weaken enforcement. Fast construction in Big Bend is a lawful, practical defense, while judicial roadblocks elevate scenic concerns over national security.
Democratic narrative
Big Bend's low crossing volume makes a massive wall a costly mismatch rather than a sound border policy. Roads, lights and barriers would permanently damage rare wilderness and public access, while targeted technology, agents and local cooperation offer smarter security without indiscriminate destruction.