“"The justices' ruling stays a preliminary injunction issued last month by a federal district judge in El Paso, who had temporarily halted border wall construction in the region designated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection as the Big Bend Sector while litigation proceeds. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated she would have denied the stay request but did not file a written dissent." — Louis Casiano, Fox News, Nov. 9, 2026”

The claim: “"The justices' ruling stays a preliminary injunction issued last month by a federal district judge in El Paso, who had temporarily halted border wall construction in the region designated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection as the Big Bend Sector while litigation proceeds. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated she would have denied the stay request but did not file a written dissent." — Louis Casiano, Fox News, Nov. 9, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: The Nov. 9 per curiam order grants the government's stay of the preliminary injunction that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas entered on Oct. 2, 2026, which had blocked the Homeland Security secretary's waivers and halted all construction in the Big Bend Sector. It notes only that "Justice Jackson would deny the application for stay," with no written dissent. The stay is temporary while the case continues, though the court said the government is "exceedingly likely" to win its argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction.

What would change our rating: A later Supreme Court or district court order lifting the stay, or a docket record showing the injunction came from a different court or date, would move this verdict.