On a Monday in November, the highest court in the land stepped aside from a dispute over a remote corner of West Texas, freeing the government to press a border wall into the desert of Big Bend National Park. It is a small stretch of earth set against a long national argument about how a country guards its edges, and about who gets to weigh the cost of a barrier against a landscape that is both wild and historically cherished. The justices did not weigh the wall's merits; they located the question in the jurisdiction of the courts, finding that the law of 1996 left little room for challengers
Supreme Court Clears Way for Border Wall Through Big Bend National Park
On a Monday in November, the highest court in the land stepped aside from a dispute over a remote corner of West Texas, freeing the government to press a border wall into the desert of Big Bend National Park. It is a small stretch of earth set against a long national argument about how a country guards its edges, and about who gets to weigh the cost of a barrier against a landscape that is both wild and historically cherished. The justices did not weigh the wall's merits; they located the question in the jurisdiction of the courts, finding that the law of 1996 left little room for challengers to argue the matter as they had. Opposition from conservationists and some within the President's own party persists, but the path now belongs to the builders.
On Monday, the US Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to build a border wall through a remote stretch of Big Bend National Park in West Texas. The justices granted the government's emergency request and lifted a lower court's injunction that had halted construction while the case was litigated.
The wall has been central to Trump's politics for a decade, a promise that drew cheers from supporters in his first campaign. Its extension into Big Bend, however, has united an unusual mix of opponents: conservationists, local officials and some members of his own party. The park's mountains and desert shelter endangered species, including the Mexican long-nosed bat, and critics say a barrier would fracture a landscape of deep ecological and cultural meaning. The administration counters that the area is an urgent corridor for irregular crossings and drug trafficking.
Judge Kathleen Cardone had blocked construction in October, pointing out that the Big Bend sector covers more than a quarter of the border yet accounts for only a small share of migrant apprehensions. The Supreme Court did not address that reasoning. Instead, it found the government likely to win on jurisdiction, citing a 1996 law that restricts lower courts to constitutional claims. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter.
The suit, brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Ruidosa Church and a local river guide who owns land nearby, had challenged the waivers that let the agency skip environmental protections. With the injunction gone, construction can proceed, and the fight over the desert's future continues beyond the courtroom.
On Monday, the US Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to build a border wall through a remote stretch of Big Bend National Park in West Texas. The justices granted the government's emergency request and lifted a lower court's injunction, which had halted construction while the case worked its way through the courts.
In its order, the court said the injunction "impedes the Government from advancing its 'compelling interests' in border security and integrity." The wall has been central to Trump's politics for a decade. During his first successful run for the presidency in 2016, he led supporters in chants of "Build the wall!"
Extending the barrier into Big Bend has drawn resistance from conservationists, local officials and some members of Trump's own Republican Party. The park's mountains and desert are home to endangered species, including the Mexican long-nosed bat. Opponents argue a wall would disrupt a landscape that is significant both ecologically and culturally. The administration has taken the opposite view, calling the project an urgent priority for national security and immigration control, and describing the Big Bend area as an artery for irregular crossings and drug trafficking.
That characterization was at the center of the lower court's ruling. US District Judge Kathleen Cardone blocked construction in October, observing that the Big Bend sector makes up more than 25 percent of the US-Mexico border but accounts for only 0.3 to 2.2 percent of migrant apprehensions. "Therefore, if the Big Bend Sector is an area of high illegal entry, so is every other sector, and the waiver authority would apply to the entire US-Mexico border," she wrote.
The Supreme Court did not engage that reasoning on its merits. Instead it said the government was "exceedingly likely to prevail" on the argument that Cardone lacked jurisdiction in the first place. The reason lies in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which limits what lower courts can decide about border barriers. Under that law, district courts may hear only claims alleging a violation of the US Constitution. The justices concluded the challengers' claim did not meet that standard, writing that "there is no such thing as a 'constitutional' major-questions claim."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only member of the court who indicated she would have denied the government's request. She did not explain her reasoning.
The suit was brought against the Department of Homeland Security by the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Ruidosa Church, and a local river guide who is also a landowner. It challenged the waivers the agency uses to speed border construction and sidestep environmental and conservation laws. Without those waivers, the plaintiffs said, any project that alters the landscape would have to comply with the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. They described the area as "one of the most remote and ecologically and culturally significant landscapes in the United States."
With the injunction lifted, construction can now go forward under those waivers. Opposition from conservationists, local officials and some Republicans is likely to continue, even as the court's ruling narrows the legal routes available to challengers.
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur Al Jazeera ↗