Supreme Court paves way for Trump to build a section of his border wall in the Big Bend area of Texas

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Donald Trump to move forward with construction of his border wall in the remote Big Bend region of southwest Texas.Construction there had been challenged by an environmental group and locals who say it would damage the environment and historic sites.The justices blocked an injunction imposed by a federal judge in Texas that had blocked construction while litigation continues.In a five-page unsigned decision, the court said that the federal judge who ruled on the issue had no authority to do so, adding that the Trump administration was “extremely likely to prevail” on that point.The government, the court added, has “compelling interests” when a challenged policy involves border security.Of the nine justices, only liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.The segment of the border adjacent to the Rio Grande is sparsely populated, with the Trump administration saying that 89,000 people have been detained trying to enter the United States there in recent years.Demonstrators rally against the construction of a section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall at Santa Elena Canyon in Big Bend National Park, Texas, on Aug. 12.Kaylee Greenlee / Bloomberg via GettyThe section in question, which the government says would involve 341 miles of construction, includes Big Bend National Park. The legal dispute focuses on three waivers issued by then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in February and her successor Markwayne Mullin in May and July that allowed the government to evade environmental and conservation laws.In a court filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said Congress in 1996 gave the government “broad authority” to build border infrastructure without getting tied up in red tape.The move was challenged by the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group; Friends of the Ruidosa Church, a nonprofit group dedicated to restoring a historic church in the area; and Danny Miller, a river guide who owns property in the area.Lawyers for the challengers said that if construction goes ahead, it would “result in the permanent alteration of an irreplaceable landscape” and “threaten unique historic and cultural resources.”Contrary to the government’s assertions, the Big Bend area has “the lowest apprehension rates” for migrants anywhere along the border, they added.Government data shows that Big Bend has the section of the southern border with the lowest number of encounters between federal agents and migrants.The plaintiffs say that the 1996 law only allows for limited waivers for border construction projects in areas where illegal crossings are pervasive.U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone on Oct. 2 invalidated Noem’s waivers, saying the secretary lacked such sweeping powers.Cardone declined to put her ruling on hold, prompting the administration to turn to the Supreme Court.Trump’s pledge to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border has been one of his signature policies ever since his first presidential campaign in 2016. It is part of his hard-line immigration policy that focuses on border security and mass deportations.Officials have warned that if other parts of the wall are built but the Big Bend area remains open, it would be exploited by those seeking to enter the country illegally.Boosted by construction funding from the Republican-controlled Congress, the administration seeks to fulfill Trump’s plan by completing a 2,000-mile installation including steel panels, vehicle barriers and new surveillance technology.