Trump administration asks Supreme Court to lift halt on Big Bend border wall
Court Watch
The Trump administration on Wednesday filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to set aside a lower court order that has stopped construction of border barriers through the Big Bend region of Texas.
The order is a significant obstacle for one of President Donald Trump's signature initiatives. The administration has been moving quickly to build walls and related infrastructure along the southern border from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.
Local opposition and the October injunction
In Big Bend, the project has drawn pushback from ranchers, residents, business owners and environmental groups. They contend that the plan, which combines walls, vehicle barriers and surveillance technology, wastes money in a region where illegal crossings have historically been low, and that construction threatens the area's landscapes. Opponents have brought several lawsuits challenging the work.
In one of those cases, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone on Oct. 2 issued a preliminary injunction halting construction across the roughly 500-mile project area while the litigation continues. The order covers Big Bend National Park as well as state-owned and privately owned land upriver and downriver from the park. Opposition had been building for months but intensified in August, when bulldozers were seen clearing land inside the national park.
The waiver dispute
At the center of the case are broad waivers issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security that let U.S. Customs and Border Protection skip environmental and other regulatory requirements that would otherwise slow a project of this size.
The government maintains that Big Bend sees a high level of illegal entry and that a 1996 law expressly gives the secretary authority to waive such rules when needed to build barriers and roads near the border. Challengers counter that Congress limited that power to areas of high illegal entry, and that the remote, rugged Big Bend region does not qualify.
Judge Cardone agreed with the challengers, finding that they "are likely to succeed on the merits of their major questions doctrine claim that the Big Bend Waivers were issued in excess of the Secretary's authority."
What is at stake
Trump has long promised a wall along the approximately 2,000-mile southwest border. Last summer, congressional Republicans provided the Department of Homeland Security with $46 billion to complete it, using a combination of 30-foot steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers and surveillance systems.
The administration warns that if Big Bend remains one of the few stretches without barriers, illegal crossings could shift there. Opponents respond that drones, surveillance towers and similar tools would be equally effective at a far lower cost than a wall.
Related listings
-
Court agrees to hear watchdog lawsuit seeking records on Elon Musk's DOGE
Court Watch 10/18/2026The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear arguments in a watchdog's lawsuit seeking public records about billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.The high court is intervening for a second time in Citizens for Responsibility and Eth...
-
Supreme Court rejects Roy Moore's push to restore $8.2M defamation verdict
Court Watch 10/14/2026The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal from former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, leaving intact a ruling that wiped out the $8.2 million defamation verdict he won over a political ad aired during his 2017 U.S. Senate campaign.By de...
-
Supreme Court rejects Roy Moore's push to restore $8.2M defamation verdict
Court Watch 10/08/2026The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected Roy Moore's push to restore an $8.2 million defamation verdict over a 2017 Senate race ad funded by a Democratic-aligned super PAC.Justices declined to hear Moore's appeal of a lower court decision that vacat...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.
