Independent newsroom

Tuesday, November 10, 2026

The File

Every claim traces to a primary source. Uncertainty is labeled. Corrections are public.

Courts · Tuesday, November 10, 2026

Supreme Court lets Big Bend barrier work proceed for now

The File desk · Nov. 10, 2026, 6:47 a.m. ET

Confirmed2 primary sourcesAdded 6:47 a.m. ET, Nov. 10

Status

Confirmed for what the Supreme Court did on Monday, November 9, 2026. In , , the Court stayed the Western District of Texas injunction that had blocked border-barrier waivers in the Big Bend Sector. Justice Jackson would deny the application. The order does not decide the lawsuit.
The Supreme Court on Monday, November 9, 2026, let border-barrier construction go ahead in the Big Bend Sector. Its order in , , paused a lower-court order that had stopped the work, and the pause does not decide who wins the lawsuit.1
That lower-court order was an injunction from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On October 2, 2026, that district court had blocked the waivers and halted the construction. The Secretary of Homeland Security had found that the Big Bend Sector, the name U.S. Customs and Border Protection uses for the region, "is an area of high illegal entry," and he waived environmental and conservation laws there. The people who sued are a river guide, an environmental nonprofit, and a nonprofit that works to preserve a historic church in Ruidosa, Texas.1
The government asked the Supreme Court to pause the injunction while it seeks review. That pause is called a stay, and it does nothing more: it lets the work go ahead until the Court acts on a request to take the case.1
The Court said the district court lacked jurisdiction, meaning the law did not let it decide this challenge. Section 102 of the lets the Secretary waive legal requirements he decides are necessary to build border barriers quickly. Under the same section, a district court may hear a challenge to such a waiver only when the claim alleges a violation of the Constitution. The challengers labeled their claim a constitutional one. The Court said it was instead a claim that the Secretary exceeded his statutory authority, and the statute does not let that district court decide it.1
The order is per curiam: it is issued in the Court's name, not under one justice's byline. Justice Jackson would deny the application for stay, and the order does not name another justice who would deny it. The application was presented to Justice Alito and referred to the Court.1
Why it matters (Estimate). Estimate. Barrier work in the Big Bend Sector can proceed while the government asks the Court to take the case. The river guide, the environmental group, and the church group in Ruidosa said construction would diminish their use of the area. Their lawsuit is not over. If the Court turns the case down, this stay ends on its own. If the Court takes the case, the stay ends when the Court sends down its judgment.1
The Court recited a Customs and Border Protection declaration that the injunction is costing the government nearly half a million dollars a day, and that the money cannot be recouped.1
How we know

Notes

  1. 1.Supreme Court of the United States, per curiam, , Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, et al., on application for stay, November 9, 2026. "We grant the requested stay." The Court says the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the challengers' claim that the Secretary exceeded his statutory authority in waiving legal requirements for border-barrier construction. "However it is labeled, respondents' claim does not 'alleg[e] a violation of the Constitution of the United States,' the only type of claim the statute permits district courts to adjudicate." "It alleges instead that the Secretary exceeded his statutory authority." Section 102 of the . The Secretary invoked the waiver for a project in the region U.S. Customs and Border Protection designated the "Big Bend Sector," which he found "is an area of high illegal entry," and waived environmental and conservation laws. See 91 Fed. Reg. 7298 (2026). Respondents are "an individual river guide, an environmental nonprofit, and a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving a historic church in Ruidosa, Texas." On October 2, 2026, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, No. 3:26-cv-01099, entered a preliminary injunction blocking the waivers and halting construction. "The application for stay presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is granted. The injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in case No. 3:26-cv-01099 is stayed pending the filing and disposition of the Government's petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically." "JUSTICE JACKSON would deny the application for stay." The Court recites a Customs and Border Protection declaration that the government is incurring "nearly half a million dollars in costs per day," which "cannot be recouped." The slip-opinion index lists 11/09/26, , , per curiam. Retrieved 6:24 a.m. ET, Nov. 10. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/26pdf/26a560_onkq.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/26

What is still unknown or disputed

  • Whether the government files a petition for review, and when. The order stays the injunction while that petition is sought and decided.
  • An hour. The order is dated November 9, 2026, and does not print a clock.
  • A city for the courthouse. The order says the Western District of Texas and does not print one.

Primary sources

Every claim in this story is drawn from the documents below. If a fetch failed, that is recorded on the card.

  1. Source 1

    Per curiam order, No. 26A560, Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church

    Supreme Court of the United States · November 9, 2026

    The Court granted a stay of the Western District of Texas injunction blocking border-barrier waivers in the Big Bend Sector. The district court lacked jurisdiction under (c)(2)(A). Justice Jackson would deny the application.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/26pdf/26a560_onkq.pdf

  2. Source 2

    2026 slip opinions

    Supreme Court of the United States · November 9, 2026

    The table lists 11/09/26, , , per curiam.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/26