![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1776440476_603_.webp\")
A Border Patrol truck near the Rio Grande in Presidio County, Texas in November 2025. (Carlos Morales | Marfa Public Radio)<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\tA Border Patrol truck near the Rio Grande in Presidio County, Texas in November 2025. (Carlos Morales | Marfa Public Radio)<\/p>\n
A West Texas river guide and church preservation group, along with a national advocacy group, are suing the Trump administration for bypassing federal environmental laws to speed up border wall plans in the state\u2019s Big Bend region, arguing the move is unconstitutional and would lead to the destruction of \u201ciconic sections\u201d of the Rio Grande corridor.<\/p>\n
Billy Miller, a Terlingua resident and Big Bend area river guide, and the nonprofit Friends of the Ruidosa Church<\/a> filed the lawsuit in federal court Thursday alongside the Center for Biological Diversity.<\/p>\n \u201cNo one comes to Big Bend to see steel walls and razor wire,\u201d Miller said in a statement. \u201cIf they build this, they\u2019re not just destroying a landscape, they\u2019re wiping out our way of life.\u201d<\/p>\n The lawsuit<\/a> targets regulatory waivers issued in February<\/a> by former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.<\/p>\n The waivers<\/a> allow U.S. Customs and Border Protection to bypass a wide range of ecological and wildlife protection laws as the agency pursues a 175-mile stretch of planned border wall<\/a> in the region from Hudspeth County through much of Presidio County.<\/p>\n While the waivers cover a portion of Big Bend Ranch State Park, CBP has indicated<\/a> in recent weeks<\/a> it is not currently pursuing physical walls there or in nearby Big Bend National Park. (The regulatory waivers do not include the national park.)<\/p>\n Thursday\u2019s lawsuit argues the wall would \u201ccleave through the Chihuahuan Desert and sever public access to iconic sections of the Rio Grande.\u201d<\/p>\n The Center for Biological Diversity described the case as a novel legal approach to fighting border wall projects.<\/p>\n The group is arguing in part that the administration\u2019s plan for a wall across the entire U.S.-Mexico border should be considered within the legal framework of the \u201cmajor questions doctrine,\u201d in which courts have found that federal regulatory actions with significant nationwide economic and political impacts should be \u201csupported by clear congressional authorization,\u201d as a 2022 explanation from the Congressional Research Service<\/a> put it.<\/p>\n The U.S. Supreme Court notably cited the major questions doctrine in its February ruling against President Trump\u2019s sweeping tariffs, as the New York Times reported.<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cHere, too, we think that this administration\u2019s plan to build the \u2018great wall\u2019 \u2013 which would be a cross-continental, ocean-to-ocean barrier \u2013 that is a major question,\u201d Emma Yip, an attorney with the environmental group, said in an interview.<\/p>\n Yip said the Big Bend area regulatory waivers should be ruled unconstitutional because they advance a \u201cbroader, highly consequential project without explicit approval from Congress.\u201d<\/p>\n CBP and the Department of Homeland Security are aware of the lawsuit, a CBP spokesperson said in a statement.<\/p>\n \u201cDHS is reviewing the lawsuit and will respond as appropriate,\u201d the spokesperson said.<\/p>\n The border wall plan has sparked widespread,<\/a> bipartisan opposition<\/a> in the Big Bend region and across Texas.<\/p>\n Multiple local governments have in recent weeks approved resolutions arguing the wall would harm their tourism-dependent communities. Republican and Democratic sheriffs in the region have spoken out against the plan,<\/a> arguing that surveillance technology would be a more effective border security tool given the region\u2019s rugged, mountainous terrain.<\/p>\n Anti-wall advocates have pushed back<\/a> on recent news headlines suggesting the region\u2019s border wall fight is over, citing the ongoing wall plans for private land in the region. Opponents have also warned that walls are not necessarily off the table in the Big Bend region\u2019s state and national parks.<\/p>\n Inside Climate News<\/a> recently reported on internal communications between CBP and the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife, in which a CBP official told the state that plans for border walls in the parks were \u201con hold.\u201d Still, the official did not rule out border walls at a later time.<\/p>\n In the emails also obtained by Marfa Public Radio, Paul Enriquez \u2013 a Border Patrol official who directs infrastructure programs \u2013 told state officials on March 6 that the state and national park areas were \u201ccurrently low priorities.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cOnce all our border wall contracts are awarded and the higher-traffic areas are addressed, we will review our plans for these areas to evaluate operational requirements that dictate barrier, roads, and\/or technology,\u201d Enriquez wrote.<\/p>\n Members of the advocacy group No Big Bend Wall traveled to Washington, D.C., this week to speak out against the wall plan and held a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol Thursday morning.<\/p>\n The border wall plan is facing growing pushback from local officials in Presidio, the largest town the wall would run through in the Big Bend region.<\/p>\n Presidio\u2019s city council voted Monday to commission a local flood risk assessment as locals worry about the prospect of the wall worsening floods along the Rio Grande. That effort is being led by the Presidio Municipal Development District, a local economic development entity that has already been pressing CBP for answers and expressing concerns to federal officials.<\/p>\n John Kennedy, the group\u2019s executive director, told Marfa Public Radio his organization is filing a declaration supporting Thursday\u2019s lawsuit and is \u201cdeveloping additional claims of our own, particularly regarding the government\u2019s failure to conduct any engineering review before building on the infrastructure that protects our community from the Rio Grande.\u201d<\/p>\n Mary Cantrell contributed reporting.<\/p>\n This reporting was made possible by generous donations from supporters like you. Please consider making a donation to Marfa Public Radio<\/a> to fund the journalism you rely on.<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1776440476_124_.webp\")
The historic adobe church in Ruidosa, Texas along the U.S.-Mexico border. The nonprofit Friends of the Ruidosa Church has worked in recent years to preserve and restore the church. (Carlos Morales | Marfa Public Radio)<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1776440476_741_.webp\")
The Trump administration is pursuing a border wall across Hudspeth, Jeff Davis and Presidio counties in the Big Bend region of West Texas. (Screenshot | U.S. Customs and Border Protection documents)<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1776440476_509_.webp\")
A levee near Presidio, Texas, where local officials expect a segment of the Big Bend area border wall would be built. (Mary Cantrell | Marfa Public Radio)<\/p>\n