The Trump administration on Wednesday filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to set aside a lower court order that has stopped construction of border barriers through the Big Bend region of Texas.

The order is a significant obstacle for one of President Donald Trump's signature initiatives. The administration has been moving quickly to build walls and related infrastructure along the southern border from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.

Local opposition and the October injunction

In Big Bend, the project has drawn pushback from ranchers, residents, business owners and environmental groups. They contend that the plan, which combines walls, vehicle barriers and surveillance technology, wastes money in a region where illegal crossings have historically been low, and that construction threatens the area's landscapes. Opponents have brought several lawsuits challenging the work.

In one of those cases, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone on Oct. 2 issued a preliminary injunction halting construction across the roughly 500-mile project area while the litigation continues. The order covers Big Bend National Park as well as state-owned and privately owned land upriver and downriver from the park. Opposition had been building for months but intensified in August, when bulldozers were seen clearing land inside the national park.

The waiver dispute

At the center of the case are broad waivers issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security that let U.S. Customs and Border Protection skip environmental and other regulatory requirements that would otherwise slow a project of this size.

The government maintains that Big Bend sees a high level of illegal entry and that a 1996 law expressly gives the secretary authority to waive such rules when needed to build barriers and roads near the border. Challengers counter that Congress limited that power to areas of high illegal entry, and that the remote, rugged Big Bend region does not qualify.

Judge Cardone agreed with the challengers, finding that they "are likely to succeed on the merits of their major questions doctrine claim that the Big Bend Waivers were issued in excess of the Secretary's authority."

What is at stake

Trump has long promised a wall along the approximately 2,000-mile southwest border. Last summer, congressional Republicans provided the Department of Homeland Security with $46 billion to complete it, using a combination of 30-foot steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers and surveillance systems.

The administration warns that if Big Bend remains one of the few stretches without barriers, illegal crossings could shift there. Opponents respond that drones, surveillance towers and similar tools would be equally effective at a far lower cost than a wall.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal from former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, leaving intact a ruling that wiped out the $8.2 million defamation verdict he won over a political ad aired during his 2017 U.S. Senate campaign.

By declining to hear the case, the justices let stand a decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that set aside a jury's finding that the ad had defamed Moore. The outcome is a win for Senate Majority PAC, the Democratic-aligned super PAC that paid for the ad and has maintained that it was accurate.

Monday's order follows an earlier setback for Moore. In June, the Court denied his emergency request to freeze the 11th Circuit ruling while his appeal was pending.

Background of the 2017 race

Moore, known for his opposition to same-sex marriage and his support for displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, lost the 2017 Senate election after his campaign was engulfed by allegations of misconduct. Leigh Corfman accused Moore of touching her inappropriately in 1979, when she was 14 and he was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. Moore denied the allegation. Other women said Moore had dated them or asked them out when they were in their late teens.

The disputed ad

Senate Majority PAC financed Highway 31, a group that ran a heavy advertising campaign against Moore during the race. Moore's defamation suit focused on one of its television spots. His lawyers argued that the ad combined statements and fragments of quotes from different news stories in a way that falsely suggested he had been accused of soliciting sex from young girls at a shopping mall. They described it as a "fabricated accusation, never made by any reporter," and said it aired 533 times in Alabama in the closing days of the election.

From jury win to reversal

A federal jury sided with Moore in 2022 and awarded him $8.2 million. The 11th Circuit later vacated that award, concluding that Moore had not proven the PAC acted with actual malice, the standard a public figure must meet to win a defamation claim.

A social media influencer known for posting viral videos of pranks has pleaded guilty to criminal impersonation in Arizona for posing as an employee of businesses in a Phoenix suburb and orchestrating brief but chaotic takeover attempts.

The outcome was welcomed by observers who said it could serve as a reminder to seekers of viral fame that stunts that cross the line legally can lead to serious ramifications.

Heston James Cobb, who posts as “Heston James,” was arrested in July 2025 after police in Tempe say he and others went into businesses posing as workers, entered employee-only areas and refused to leave when asked to do so. He entered his plea Friday.

In one video Cobb, wearing a Chipotle Mexican Grill shirt, told restaurant staff he was going to “clean house” before a group of men wearing dark shirts flooded into the eatery and ignored requests to leave. One man posing as an employee cleaned a tabletop with a mop.

Investigators said the videos had millions of views and potentially generated large amounts of income.

Vicki Lopez, an attorney representing Cobb, declined to comment Saturday. The Associated Press left a message with Cobb's TikTok account seeking comment.

Steve Chucri, president of the Arizona Restaurant Association, said he hopes Cobb's punishment is “severe” to deter copycats.

“There's no place for it,” Chucri said. “That's the last thing we need to put up with in the restaurant industry. The amount of money it takes to operate today is expensive.”

Chucri said the association does not offer any formal training or advice to restaurants on dealing with social media pranksters, and he hopes it does not come to that.

“We're a society of civility,” Chucri said. “We shouldn't have to.”

Matthew Pittman, a social media professor at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, hopes the arrest will be a warning to influencers about boundaries when creating prank or satirical content.

Pittman said he and others who teach aspiring content creators generally stress that “real world norms and laws” extend into the digital world.

“So doing something that is illegal in real life would also be illegal on social, even if you are doing it for content,” he said. “This is a clear case of going beyond what the law allows.”

Among the recent cases he cited was an influencer in Long Island, New York, who was arrested last year after a series of pranks. They included videos of him going to eateries; pouring food such as raw eggs or beans over his head; and then running off, leaving the mess to be cleaned by others.

“Every few years a YouTuber, influencer or prank content creator goes a little too far, gets in trouble, and reminds the rest of us creators that digital actions can have real world consequences,” Pittman said.

Cara Hawkins-Jedlicka, a communications professor at Washington State University who teaches about content creation, said it's not enough for influencers to stay within the law. They also need to have basic empathy.

“When is it pulling a prank, and when it is being cruel?” Hawkins-Jedlicka said. “Before anything else, this is truly kind of unkind. This influencer was really only thinking about himself and how can I take advantage of this community.”

Two lawsuits filed by small businesses are challenging Trump’s sweeping tariffs announced Thursday that impose double-digit levies on 60 trading partners.

The tariffs, implemented under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 for what the Trump administration says is countries’ failure to prevent imports produced by forced labor, cover 99% of U.S. imports. Critics say the goal is less to prevent forced-labor imports and more to replace the worldwide tariffs that Trump imposed last year that were struck down by the Supreme Court in February. They came just as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs — that had also been challenged in court — expired.

Educational toy company Learning Resources, which was part of the tariff lawsuit that won in the Supreme Court, filed a new suit along with several other small businesses in the Court of International Trade on Friday over the current round of tariffs.

The second lawsuit was filed by Burlap and Barrel, a New York-based spice company, and Collective Horology, a watch retailer based in Ventura, California. They are represented by Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian advocacy group.

Both lawsuits argue that the government didn’t adequately establish its case against each specific economy or spell how the tariffs will eliminate the specified practice they are being levied for, as required by Section 301.

“Forced labor is morally indefensible, but an important objective does not give the government permission to ignore the law,” said Sara Albrecht, chairman and CEO of the Liberty Justice Center. “The administration allowed one global tariff to expire and immediately replaced it with another under a different statute. Changing the statute doesn’t change the law.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Experts say it might be tougher to successfully challenge the current round of tariffs than previous rounds. Trump used Section 301 to impose big tariffs on China in his first term, and they survived court challenges.

Unlike the Section 122 levies that expired Friday, “these tariffs will be with us for the long haul,” said lawyer Patrick Childress, a partner at Holland & Knight and a former U.S. trade official.

Even if countries enact the precise policies the U.S. wants, he said, they will still need to prove that they’re enforcing them to Washington’s satisfaction before the tariffs are removed. “This suggests that no short-term path for country-wide relief from the new Section 301 tariffs will be available.”