Across the sun-scorched reaches of West Texas, where a national park and a remote stretch of border meet, a $1.7 billion plan to raise barriers has become a question of who may decide how a landscape is shaped. The federal government, seeking to speed a security project along the Mexican frontier, has asked the nation's highest court to undo a lower court's pause on construction. Behind the legal filings stands an older argument: how much authority a state can claim over land and history in the name of order, and how much an unbroken landscape and a centuries-old church should be allowed to co
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to revive stalled Big Bend border wall after judge's injunction
Work is halted until defendants comply with all applicable laws
Mark
Start with the basic move. What exactly is the administration asking the Supreme Court to do?
Mimi
Lift Judge Cardone's October 2 injunction, or pause it, so construction planning in Big Bend can resume while the lawsuit continues. It's an emergency request, filed Wednesday.
Mark
And why did the judge stop the work in the first place?
Mimi
She wrote that work is halted until the defendants comply with all applicable laws. In a later opinion she found the waivers issued by Noem and Mullin exceeded their authority.
Luke
Worth being careful there. Those are the judge's findings at this stage of a lawsuit that is still being fought. The case hasn't been finally decided.
Mark
What is the government's argument?
Mimi
That Congress clearly authorized the secretary both to build barriers and to waive legal requirements to build them quickly, even if the question is of vast economic and political significance.
Luke
And the 1 percent figure for migrant arrests comes from opponents who sued. It's their claim, not an independent count, and the reporting doesn't give a government figure to compare it with.
Mark
Didn't the administration already pause the project once?
Mimi
Yes, in August, after bipartisan criticism over the park's landscape and wildlife.
Luke
What we don't know is whether the Supreme Court will act quickly, or how. It hasn't responded, so anything beyond that is guesswork.
Der Puls
- A federal judge's October 2 injunction has frozen a $1.7 billion border wall project near Big Bend National Park, and the government is pushing back hard.
- Waivers that bypassed environmental and historical protections were found by the court to have exceeded the authority of two Homeland Security secretaries, deepening the legal clash.
- The Justice Department has filed an emergency appeal, arguing that Congress clearly granted the power to build barriers and to waive laws to hurry them along.
- Challengers counter that Big Bend's roughly 500 miles of border account for only about 1 percent of migrant arrests, and the Supreme Court's response is still pending.
Across the sun-scorched reaches of West Texas, where a national park and a remote stretch of border meet, a $1.7 billion plan to raise barriers has become a question of who may decide how a landscape is shaped. The federal government, seeking to speed a security project along the Mexican frontier, has asked the nation's highest court to undo a lower court's pause on construction. Behind the legal filings stands an older argument: how much authority a state can claim over land and history in the name of order, and how much an unbroken landscape and a centuries-old church should be allowed to count in return.
On Wednesday, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to allow the Trump administration to resume planning a border wall through the Big Bend region of West Texas. The request targets an injunction, issued in El Paso by US District Judge Kathleen Cardone on October 2, that stopped work while a lawsuit moves forward.
The Department of Homeland Security envisions vehicle barriers, patrol roads, lighting and detection technology in and around Big Bend National Park, a project valued at $1.7 billion. The administration presents it as part of a wider effort to tighten the border with Mexico.
The challengers, including the Center for Biological Diversity and a river guide who works in the area, want to protect the landscape and a historic church. They argue that waivers of environmental and historical laws, issued between February and July by former secretary Kristi Noem and current secretary Markwayne Mullin, were used to rush the project past those protections. Judge Cardone later agreed the waivers exceeded their authority. Opponents also point out that the region holds about 500 miles of border yet accounts for only about 1 percent of migrant arrests.
The justices have not yet responded. Their decision will settle whether fast-tracked construction near Big Bend can resume while the case continues.
On Wednesday, the Justice Department filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court, asking it to let the Trump administration go back to planning a border wall through the Big Bend region of West Texas. The filing targets an injunction from a lower court that has stopped construction while a lawsuit over the project moves forward.
The Department of Homeland Security's plans call for vehicle barriers, patrol roads, lighting and detection technology in and around Big Bend National Park. The project is valued at $1.7bn. The administration describes it as part of its broader push to tighten security on the border with Mexico.
The lawsuit was brought by several plaintiffs, among them the Center for Biological Diversity and a river guide who works in the Big Bend area. They want to preserve the landscape and protect a historic church. They are also challenging the federal government's use of waivers of environmental and historical laws to speed the project along.
Those waivers were issued between February and July by two Homeland Security secretaries: Kristi Noem, the former secretary, and Markwayne Mullin, the current one. Both found the region to be an "area of high illegal entry" that required additional barriers to control the border.
Opponents of the wall note that Big Bend has about 805km (500 miles) of border but accounts for only about 1 percent of migrant arrests, according to the challengers who sued the administration.
US District Judge Kathleen Cardone issued the injunction in El Paso on October 2. Work is halted, she wrote in her order, "until and unless Defendants comply with all applicable laws." In a later opinion, she found that the waivers exceeded the authority of Noem and Mullin.
In its request, the Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to pause or overturn her injunction. Its filing argued that even if the secretary's waiver authority raises a question of "vast economic and political significance," Congress clearly authorized the secretary both to build border barriers and to waive legal requirements to speed their construction.
The project had already hit trouble before the court fight. In August, the administration paused construction in Big Bend after the plan drew bipartisan criticism over its potential effect on the park's landscape and wildlife.
The Supreme Court has not yet responded to the appeal. Its decision will determine whether fast-tracked construction near Big Bend National Park can resume while the lawsuit continues.
Bemerkenswerte Zitate
Congress did clearly authorize the secretary both to build border barriers and to waive legal requirements in order to facilitate their expeditious construction.— Justice Department, emergency filing to the Supreme Court
Work is halted until and unless Defendants comply with all applicable laws.— Judge Kathleen Cardone, injunction order
Möchten Sie die ganze Geschichte?
Das Original lesen bei Al Jazeera ↗
Politics & Governance