Verified reporting
Verified reporting: what the Court did
The Supreme Court on Monday, November 9, granted the federal government's request to pause a lower-court injunction that had stopped border barrier and road construction in the region U.S. Customs and Border Protection calls the Big Bend Sector of Texas. The case is Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, No. 26A560. The Court acted in a five-page unsigned per curiam opinion. According to the order and the Court's docket, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the application.
The challengers are a river guide, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the Ruidosa Church, a nonprofit dedicated to preserving a historic church in Ruidosa, Texas. They sued over waivers issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security under Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That law lets the Secretary waive "all legal requirements" needed to ensure expeditious construction of border barriers, and it limits lawsuits over those waivers to claims "alleging a violation of the Constitution."
On October 2, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone of the Western District of Texas entered a preliminary injunction blocking the waivers and halting the associated construction. She treated the challengers' major questions doctrine argument as a constitutional claim that her court could hear.
The Supreme Court disagreed at this stage. The order says the government is "exceedingly likely to prevail" on its argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction, because the claim, "however it is labeled," alleges that the Secretary exceeded his statutory authority rather than violated the Constitution. "There is no such thing as a 'constitutional' major-questions claim," the Court wrote. It also cited the government's "compelling interests" in border security and a Customs and Border Protection declaration stating that the injunction was costing nearly half a million dollars a day that "cannot be recouped."
Legal / factual context
Context: what happens next
This is a stay, not a final decision on the merits. Under the order, the injunction is paused while the government files and the Court considers a petition for certiorari. If the Court denies review, the stay ends automatically. If it grants review, the stay lasts until the Court's judgment is sent down. The lawsuit itself continues.
NBC News reported that the government says the project involves 341 miles of construction, including Big Bend National Park, and that the administration says 89,000 people have been detained trying to enter there in recent years. The challengers dispute the need, arguing in court that Big Bend has "the lowest apprehension rates" on the border and that construction would permanently alter an "irreplaceable landscape" and threaten historic and cultural resources. NBC also reported that government data shows Big Bend has the fewest border encounters of any sector. Both points are part of the record of this fight, and readers should weigh them.
Sources and reading
- Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, No. 26A560, per curiam opinion on application for stay (Supreme Court of the United States, Nov. 9, 2026)
Primary source for the holding, quotations, cost declaration and stay terms. - Supreme Court docket, No. 26A560
Filing history and the November 9 order; Justice Jackson would deny. - Supreme Court paves way for Trump to build a section of his border wall in the Big Bend area of Texas (NBC News, Nov. 9, 2026)
Government's 341-mile and 89,000-detention figures; challengers' arguments; encounter data.
Reporting above is based on the cited records. The section labeled “Our view” is editorial opinion. This article is not legal advice. Our Gadsden Flag is an independent brand, not a government or military organization.
Conservative commentary · Our view
Our View: the law means what it says
Congress decided this question nearly thirty years ago. In 1996 it told the executive branch to build barriers in areas of high illegal entry, let the Secretary clear away the legal underbrush that would otherwise tie projects up for years, and sharply limited which lawsuits courts could hear. You can like that choice or hate it. But it was made by the elected branch, through the constitutional process, and it has been on the books ever since.
What the district court did was relabel a statutory argument as a constitutional one so it could get around the limit Congress wrote. The Supreme Court saw through it. That matters far beyond one stretch of the Rio Grande. Conservatives have rightly championed the major questions doctrine as a check on agencies that invent power Congress never gave them. It is not a magic key that lets any plaintiff into any courtroom Congress closed. Respect for separation of powers has to cut both ways.
Nor should anyone pretend the stakes are only legal. A border is only as strong as its weakest stretch. If barriers rise everywhere except the most remote country, smugglers will route through the remote country. Remoteness is not security; it is often the opposite, because it means fewer agents covering more ground.
We also understand why people love Big Bend. It is one of the most beautiful places in America, and the families, guides and congregations who live near it are not villains for wanting it protected. The right answer for them is the one the Constitution offers: persuade Congress to change the law. Until then, the executive has a duty to carry it out, and judges have a duty to stay within the jurisdiction they were given.
This fight is not over, and we will report what the Court does with any petition for review. For now, the rule of law had a good day. Secure the border, honor the statute and let the people's representatives make the policy. United in Freedom. Defended by Patriots.