Landowners in Texas ask court to stop Trump border wall
A coalition of landowners, ranchers, businesses and the Conserve Big Bend nonprofit filed suit to block construction of a section of the Trump administration's border wall through the remote Big Bend region of southern Texas. Plaintiffs and allied indigenous groups and environmentalists argue the area is not a high-traffic corridor for illegal crossings and that federal waivers of environmental and cultural protections are inappropriate for the site.
Why It Matters
The case challenges the administration's broader $46 billion plan to reinforce roughly 3,219 km of the US-Mexico border with steel bollard walls and related infrastructure while relying on statutory waivers that bypass environmental, archaeological and wildlife safeguards. A court decision could affect how and where construction proceeds and whether expedited waivers can be used in low-traffic border sectors.
Key Facts
- Plaintiffs: Conserve Big Bend, six landowners, with the support of dozens more people along the border
- Region targeted: Big Bend region, southern Texas
- Administration plan value: $46 billion
- Total planned border coverage: Roughly 3,219 km (2,000 miles)
- Wall specifications cited: 9-metre (30-foot) steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers and technology
A group of landowners, ranchers, businesses and the nonprofit Conserve Big Bend announced a lawsuit on Monday seeking to halt construction of border wall infrastructure through the Big Bend region of Texas. The plaintiffs say the remote area is home to communities, cultural sites and natural landscapes that would be harmed by the project. The litigation comes as the Trump administration accelerates a roughly $46 billion effort to add steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers and surveillance technology along about 3,219 km of the US-Mexico border. To speed work, officials have invoked waivers that bypass a range of environmental, archaeological and wildlife protections, drawing criticism from indigenous groups and conservation advocates. Plaintiffs in the Big Bend suit contend the region does not fit the administration's description of a high-illegal-entry area. They point to US Customs and Border Protection figures cited in the filing showing Big Bend — which encompasses about 805 km (500 miles) of the border, roughly one-quarter of the US-Mexico boundary — accounted for only about 1% of arrests along the entire border. Local opponents and specialists based in the area have stressed the cultural and ecological significance of Big Bend and said construction would damage sites and communities. The lawsuit joins several other legal challenges and bipartisan opposition in Texas, where sheriffs, elected officials, tour guides, environmental groups and landowners have pushed back against wall-building plans that cross private land and protected areas.
Keep Reading
Iran strikes on US diplomatic facilities in 4 Gulf countries cost $184M: IG report
Supreme Court won’t restore Trump’s mail-in voting plan for midterms
Paxton gets $54M boost from Senate Leadership Fund’s Texas PAC
