Big Bend Injunction: What the October 2 Order Blocks and What Remains Undecided

Santa Elena Canyon and the Rio Grande in Big Bend National Park, Texas. National Park Service photo by Ann Wildermuth. Public domain.

On October 2, 2026, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone granted a preliminary injunction in Friends of the Ruidosa Church v. Mullin, a Western District of Texas case challenging border-infrastructure work in the Big Bend area.

What the Order Changes Now

The injunction blocks the federal government from building border barriers or related infrastructure, or carrying out ground-disturbing construction in the Big Bend Sector, unless it complies with applicable laws. The court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on at least one claim and found a likelihood of serious, irreparable harm without interim relief.

What the Order Does Not Decide

A preliminary injunction is interim relief. It does not finally resolve every claim, the ultimate legality of the challenged waivers, or the final remedy. Later motions, a stay, appellate review or a final merits ruling can change the operative status.

What Changes Now and What Remains Open

Immediate consequence: construction covered by the order is blocked under its terms. Remaining question: what survives as the litigation and any appellate review move forward.

What Has Happened Since October 2

On October 8, federal defendants asked Judge Cardone to stay the preliminary injunction (ECF 74). A motion asks the court to act. It does not suspend the injunction by itself.

On October 14, the judge issued a memorandum opinion (ECF 75) explaining why preliminary relief was warranted. She found the challengers likely to succeed on their argument concerning the legal limits of border-construction waivers, including the statute's reference to areas of high illegal entry. Those were preliminary findings, not a final judgment.

In an order signed and filed October 20 (ECF 78), Judge Cardone denied the government's motion to stay. The October 2 injunction therefore remained in effect.

On October 21, the government applied to the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay (No. 26A560), and alternatively sought summary reversal. Justice Alito requested a response by October 29 at 4 p.m. Eastern. As of the October 25 docket check, no Supreme Court stay order was listed. An application, a request for a response and an order granting relief are three different steps.

Read the primary records: October 14 court memorandum (ECF 75); October 20 stay-denial order (ECF 78, appendix pp. 233a–238a); October 21 Supreme Court application; Supreme Court docket and subsequent orders.

How to Read an Injunction

For a deeper explanation of what injunctions change immediately and what they leave unresolved, read What an Injunction Does and What It Leaves Undecided.