Which legal or environmental injunctions still affect construction of the border wall in 2025?
Executive summary
As of the available reporting, a federal court in Texas has entered at least one injunction that affects federal handling of previously constructed border-wall materials and restricts the Biden Administration’s ability to redirect certain appropriated funds for border barriers; DHS still holds barrier funds that remain available to obligate through September 30, 2025 [1] [2]. State litigation led by Texas produced a permanent preliminary injunction that, according to the Texas Attorney General, remains in effect after the Administration declined to appeal [3] [4].
1. Litigation from Texas has produced binding court restraints
Texas sued the federal government over use of appropriated border-barrier funds and won a preliminary — later described by the Texas Attorney General as permanent — injunction barring the Administration from redirecting those funds away from construction; Texas officials say the government allowed the appeal window to lapse, leaving the injunction in place [3] [4]. A separate docket (Bush v. Biden) shows a judge took steps to prohibit federal disposal of built materials until February 1, 2025, and continued case activity into late 2025 [1].
2. Federal availability of prior appropriations remains a limiting factor
GAO reporting confirms DHS still has appropriated barrier funds from FY2018–2021 that remain available to obligate and that some FY2021 funds will remain available until September 30, 2025; GAO notes no court order it was aware of to withhold those funds from obligation as of its reporting [2]. This creates a legal-technical constraint: court orders about how funds can be used interact with statutory availability windows for appropriations [2].
3. Environmental waivers and NEPA remain politically and legally contested
Congressional and judicial history shows environmental-review questions have been central in earlier litigation: courts have grappled with whether waivers under immigration law render NEPA inapplicable and whether transferred funds could be used for construction; the Congressional Research Service summary documents those unanswered legal threads from prior years [5]. PolitiFact and other reporting also highlight that waivers bypassing environmental law have been used in recent construction pushes — a flashpoint for further legal challenges [6].
4. Injunctions have targeted materials and remedies, not only construction starts
At least one judge ordered the federal government not to dispose of existing construction materials — bollard panels, gates, drainage materials — pending resolution, a narrow but consequential relief that can block reuse, sale or destruction of assets [1]. Texas’s filings later sought judicial orders forcing the administration to resume building, showing the litigation seeks both affirmative and prohibitory remedies [7].
5. Competing narratives: state victory vs. federal discretion
Texas’s Attorney General frames recent rulings as a final victory forcing the federal government to use funds for the wall [3] [4]. Available federal accounting and GAO analysis, however, emphasize that funds remain available through statutory expiration dates and that litigation over the consistency of expenditures with statutory purposes continues — a signal that federal agencies may argue different legal obligations in future proceedings [2] [5].
6. Practical effects: waivers, contracts and on-the-ground construction
Despite legal fights, DHS/CBP announced major contract awards for “Smart Wall” projects and invoked waivers for discrete miles of barrier work — moves that suggest agencies are proceeding where they believe legal authority and waivers permit construction [8]. Independent trackers note ongoing project starts and waiver uses in 2025, indicating injunctions have not created a blanket nationwide stop to all new barrier work [8] [6].
7. Limitations, unanswered questions, and where reporting stops
Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, single nationwide injunction that halts all 2025 construction across all agencies; instead reporting shows a patchwork of court orders, state litigation results, contract awards, and waivers [1] [3] [8]. The materials do not provide a consolidated list of every active injunction in every federal district as of late 2025; detailed, up-to-the-minute docket review would be required to map every remaining legal restriction [1] [5].
8. Bottom line for 2025: constrained but not uniformly frozen
Legal and environmental injunctions have constrained federal discretion over materials and certain uses of appropriated funds — with Texas litigation central to those constraints — yet DHS and CBP continue to award contracts and use waivers in places they judge lawful, and GAO records show funds remain available until statutory expiration dates [3] [1] [2] [8]. Readers should treat the situation as legally contested and geographically uneven: court orders affect particular materials, funds, and projects rather than creating an undisputed nationwide moratorium [1] [2] [5].