Hello. This is RJ Deakin reading the Supreme Court of United States opinion syllabus in Mark Wayne Mullen, Secretary of Homeland Security versus Friends of the Ruidosa Church on application for stay, November 9th, 2026. And it's a percurium opinion. So five pages going to read all of it. Might skip some of the more onerous portions of some of the citations here. Uh Procurium, Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrate Grant Responsibility Act of nineteen ninety-six, DIIRIRA grants the Secretary of Homeland Security broad authority to construct border barriers and roads to deter illegal crossings in the areas of high illegal entry to the United States. That's Section 102A. As amended. The same section expressly authorizes the Secretary to waive all legal requirements as necessary to ensure expeditious construction of those barriers and roads, Section 102C one, and sharply limits judicial review of all claims arising from such waiver determinations. Specifically, the statute provides that a cause of action or claim may only be brought alleging a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and courts shall not have jurisdiction over nonconstitutional claims. That's Section 102 C2 CAPA. Earlier this year, the Secretary invoked Section 102's waiver authority to initiate a border construction project at the U.S.-Mexico border, in a region that Customs and Border Protection has designated as the Big Bend Sector. The Secretary found that the Big Bend sector is an area of high illegal entry, requiring additional border barriers, and waived the application of a variety of environmental and conservation laws to facilitate expeditious construction. That was from the Federal Register in 2026 at 7298 as amended. Shortly thereafter, respondents, an individual river guide, an environmental nonprofit, and a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving a historic chance church in Ruidosa, Texas, challenged those waivers determinations by filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Respondents claimed, among other things, that the Secretary's waiver determinations violated the major questions doctrine under the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 1. That's from the first amended complaint at the Western District of Texas, paragraph 75 to 85. Although styled as constitutional, that claim simply alleged that the Secretary exceeded his statutory authority in issuing the waivers. On October 2nd, 2026, the District Court entered a preliminary injunction blocking the Secretary's waivers and halting all associated construction. The District Court acknowledged that its jurisdiction was limited to constitutional claims, but it nonetheless concluded that respondents' quote unquote major questions doctrine claim qualified because, in its view, the major questions doctrine is a constitutional clear statement rule grounded in separation of powers. Um that's memorandum opinion from the court below at seven to eight. The court further held that respondents' major questions doctrine claim was likely to succeed on the merits because the Secretary lacked clear congressional authorization to issue the waivers. Because the Fifth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear this case, the IIRIRA section 102C2 CAP C, the Solicitor General filed an application requesting either summary reversal or a stay of the district court's preliminary injunction. We grant the requested stay. The government is exceedingly likely to prevail on its argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate respondents' so-called major questions doctrine claim. However, it is labeled respondents' claims. However, it is labeled, respondents' claim does not allege a violation of the Constitution of the United States. The only type of claim the statute permits district courts to adjudicate, section or sorry, uh IIRIRA, Section 102C2 Cap A, it alleges that the Secretary exceeded his statutory authority, and we have long recognized that claims simply alleging that the executive branch has exceeded its statutory authority are not constitutional claims. That's Dalton versus Specter from 1994. That conclusion does not change, whereas here a plaintiff invokes the major questions doctrine. Many canons and rules of statutory interpretation reflect constitutional principles, including constitutional avoidance, the clear statement, federalism rules, and the presumption against retroactivity. See Biden versus Nebraska from 2023 and its Barrett concurrence. When courts invoke those canons, however, they do so in service of adjudicating statutory claims, not constitutional ones. See Clark versus Martinez from 2005, that case explaining that litigants invoke the constitutional avoidance canon to vindicate their statutory rights. The same is true when a court invokes the major questions canon of statutory interpretation, FCC versus consumers research from 2025, Kavanaugh concurrence. There is no such thing as a constitutional major questions claim. The remaining factors also warrant a stay. To start, the district court's order, which bars the Secretary from exercising his statutory authority to waive applicable laws as he determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of borders under IRIRA, Section 102C1, delays the government's construction of border barriers and roads in the Big Bend sector. The injunction thus impedes the government from advancing its compelling interest in border security and integrity. See um Treasury Employees versus von Rab from 1989 and see the application to or appendix to application 226A at paragraph five. In addition, the government has presented a declaration from a U.S. customs and border protection issue official who attests that because of the injunction, the government is incurring nearly half a million dollars in cost per day, which cannot be recouped if it prevails at the end of this litigation. While the loss of money is not typically considered irreparable harm, that changes if the funds cannot be recouped and are thus irrevocably expended. The National Institutes of Health versus American Public Health Association 2025 is this case site there. The balance of the equities also favors the government respondents' claim that construction in the Big Bend sector will diminish their ability to use and enjoy the area. But Congress's enactment of the IIRIRA, Section 102C, which permits the Secretary to waive the requirements of environmental protection and other conservation laws, reflects a clear preference for expeditious border construction over the very harms respondents assert. Section 102C1. And courts of equity cannot, in their discretion, reject the balance that Congress has struck in a statute. United States v. Cooperative, 2001. The government's interest therefore outweighs any aesthetic recreational and environmental harm alleged by respondents. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, 2008. The application for stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the courts as granted. The injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in the below case is stayed, pending the filing and disposition of the government's petition for a writ of sortier. If such writ is timely sought, such should sortier be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event Sertier is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this court. It is so ordered. And Justice Jackson would have uh would deny the application for stay. Uh thanks for listening, anybody. I'm going to use my post role a little weird today. But uh I can no longer ethically work or subcontract with the Montana Office of Public Defender. The fact that the public defender would remove an attorney from a case he had for two years, only weeks before trial, is enough. But for them to remove me based on a complaint from the prosecutor in that same case is entirely too much. No one checked with my client, who has been with me through an assassination attempt on his life and another case that we won together. It's too much. I'm trying to take some of my cases back pro bono, but I need a little help. Reach out if you'd like to help in any way, frankly. I can't pay, and my client sure as hell can't pay, but they deserve a fight. And the Montana Office of the Public Defender is not giving them one. You can reach out to me at roadscholar80 at gmail.com. As always, that's Rhodes Like the Truck Drive in Rhodes. Scholar S C H O L A R and the number 8080 at gmail.com. Thanks for listening, everybody, and thanks for being with me for I think it's like seven or eight years now.