The Supreme Court of the United States ruled eight to one on Monday (the 9th) that the Donald Trump administration may resume building walls along the border with Mexico, in the Big Bend sector in western Texas. The region includes the Big Bend National Park.
The Court stayed a preliminary injunction that federal Judge Kathleen Cardone of El Paso had granted in October. The district court’s decision barred any work in the sector, which covers more than 800 kilometers of border, until the case was resolved.
The Supreme Court’s decision provisionally stayed the case, and will remain in effect until the court panel decides whether to hear it or not, or until the action is terminated in the district court.
Authorizations in the U.S. dispense with environmental laws
The case questions three special authorizations from the Department of Homeland Security, granted between February and July, by then-Secretary Christine Noem, and by her successor, Markwayne Mullin. The authorizations are based on a 1996 law that allows expediting works in southern border areas, known for cases of illegal crossings.
From these authorizations, the government is exempt from complying with several environmental and historic preservation laws, such as endangered species protections. The regulation also waives the requirement to conduct an environmental impact assessment for public works.
The action was filed in April by a group of plaintiffs. Among them is the association Friends of the Ruidosa Church, which seeks to preserve a historic church in Ruidosa, and argues that the vibration from the machinery threatens the building. The plaintiffs also say that Noem and Mullin exceeded their legal duties, invoking the so-called ‘major questions’ doctrine of the United States. On this basis, the Executive would need clear authorization from Congress to take actions of major economic and political significance.
In the district court, Judge Cardone accepted the argument. The judge also noted that Big Bend has the lowest number of immigrant detentions among all sectors of the border with Mexico. According to documents submitted in the case, the region accounts for more than a quarter of the U.S. border, yet accounts for 0.3% to 2.2% of annual detentions.
The Department of Justice called the injunction ‘unfounded.’ The government argues there are illegal crossings and drug seizures in the area, with cartels operating on the Mexican side, and that a stretch without a barrier would attract diverted flows from other points.
Supreme Court endorses government’s argument
To the justices of the United States Supreme Court, the 1996 law shows “a clear preference for the expedited construction of the border,” which would weigh more than the alleged aesthetic, recreational, and environmental damages.
The Court also stated that the injunction would be preventing the Trump administration from “promoting its imperative interests in the security and integrity of the border”.
In practice, the Supreme Court is the body that determines how far Trump’s immigration policy extends, and the border wall is one of the president’s main measures on immigration.
The “major questions” doctrine has already been used in other cases. It was from it that the Court blocked mandatory vaccination in companies during the administration of former President Joe Biden. More recently, in February of this year, the court also invoked the doctrine to strike down Trump’s global tariffs.
