The preliminary injunction, issued Friday by California U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, reportedly bars the Pentagon from transferring $1 billion from counterdrug funding to expand or enhance border barriers. According to Politico, it also "appears to jeopardize another $1.5 billion of the $8.1 billion the administration planned to use for border construction."

https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/25/judge-block-border-wall/

This may actually turn out to be a good thing.  It's only been recently that US District Courts have been allowed to issue nationwide injunctions and interfere in Article II powers of the President.  When a US District Court Judge in Texas issued an injunction against Obamacare's mandates, Obama simply ignored the ruling.  At the time, the GOP controlled Congress talked about impeachment, but did nothing! 

Just prior to this ruling, the Attorney General announced the DOJ was filing a lawsuit challenging the authority of US District Courts to issue nationwide rulings which are binding on both Congress and the President.  It has only been a relatively short time that US District Courts have been allowed to rule on matters binding others outside the geographical boundaries of their individual districts.

If the US Supreme Court restores the principles of binding jurisdiction only within the geographical boundaries of lower courts, then the anti Trump judicial activism will be greatly impeded, if not stopped altogether.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/05/we-build-the-wall-closes-off-human-and-drug-smuggling-corridor-in-one-weekend-100000-a-day-drug-pipeline-shut-down-video/