The Supreme Court Let the Border Wall Resume, 8 to 1

Photo: U.S. Customs and Border Protection / Public domain

The Supreme Court let the border wall resume, 8 to 1. The unsigned order came down in the Big Bend case, and it clears the way for construction to go ahead while the legal fight continues. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone public dissent. One justice said no. Eight said go.

That is what happened, and the numbers matter. An 8 to 1 vote is not a close call. It is a signal from the Court that it is not going to stand in the way of this administration's border wall, at least not now. The order was unsigned, which means the Court did not put a name on it and did not explain itself at length. It just let the work resume.

The Big Bend case is about a stretch of the border in Texas, but the ruling reaches further than that. It reaches every community along the border where a wall means bulldozers, fences and families cut off from the land they have lived on for generations. A wall is not an abstract idea in those places. It is a concrete barrier through a yard, a ranch, a wildlife refuge and a town.

Jackson's dissent matters because she was the only justice willing to say publicly that the Court should have stopped this. A lone dissent does not stop construction, but it puts a marker down. It says that someone on the Court looked at this case and saw a reason to pause, and that the rest of the Court chose not to. History remembers dissents, especially when the majority's decision ages badly.

Why does it matter? Because the wall is a symbol as much as it is a structure. It is the administration's answer to immigration, a big expensive wall instead of a working system. It does not fix the asylum backlog. It does not help the people waiting at ports of entry. It does not address why people leave their homes and risk everything to come here. It just puts a wall in the desert and calls it a solution.

And walls cost money that could go anywhere else. Every mile of wall is money that is not going to schools, clinics, roads or the immigration courts that are drowning in cases. The administration has chosen the wall over all of that, and the Court has now said the choice can go ahead.

What happens next is construction, and then more court fights. The Big Bend case is not over. The order lets the wall resume while the case continues, which means the bulldozers move now and the lawyers argue later. That is a hard way to do justice, because once a wall is built, it is not easily unbuilt. The land is changed, and the communities are changed with it.

The question is whether the courts will eventually draw a line, or whether 8 to 1 is the new normal for the border. Jackson's dissent says a line should have been drawn here. The rest of the Court disagreed, and the wall is going up.

WEAR YOUR VOICE