A federal judge on Sunday declined to block construction on the Trump administration’s Big Bend area border wall, saying plaintiffs could not argue the plan violates a federal law because the administration was legally allowed to bypass that law.
The Presidio Municipal Development District, a local economic development group, sued the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection in June, claiming the agencies had violated the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 in seeking to build the wall along the city’s levee system without approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The group argued the plan could lead to “deadly” flooding in the area if not properly evaluated.
On July 2, just two weeks after the lawsuit was filed, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin responded by waiving the law in question, allowing the agencies to bypass it entirely. At that point the Rivers and Harbors Act joined the slew of other environmental, cultural resource protection and contracting laws already waived by DHS to expedite border wall construction across the region.
PMDD had asked U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton to at least temporarily block impending wall construction while the case played out in court.
In his ruling Sunday, Walton wrote that the July 2 waiver “defeats any claim that the defendants violated” the Rivers and Harbors Act.
“Despite the understandable concerns expressed by the plaintiff regarding the harms it and the plaintiff’s residents might sustain by the potential construction of the Smart Wall,” Walton wrote, he was “compelled” to reject PMDD’s request for a temporary block on construction.
“We are very disappointed that the court will allow this potentially disastrous construction to continue, but we remain committed to protecting the Big Bend area and those who rely on the threatened levees,” Democracy Forward, the national nonprofit representing PMDD in the case, said in a statement Sunday.
The judge noted in the ruling that the DHS Secretary has broad authority to waive legal requirements for border infrastructure — as it has done across the Big Bend region, including in Big Bend National Park — under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996.
“It is clear that Congress did not intend to limit the Secretary of DHS’s waiver authority,” Walton wrote.
In court filings, DHS has said it does intend to collaborate with the Army Corps on the wall project. The agency has also stated that a design for the border wall through Presidio is not yet finalized, despite construction timelines beginning as early as August.
The preliminary nature of the border wall plans as they relate to the levee system didn’t help PMDD’s case, Walton wrote in his ruling.
“Conspicuously absent from the plaintiff’s allegations is a claim that there has been any action that has actually impacted the levee system itself,” he wrote.
The judge did rule that the court has proper jurisdiction over the case, an issue that came up at a previous hearing on July 21.
At that hearing, Walton heard arguments from attorneys with Democracy Forward and DHS. The question of whether or not there is an urgent need to build a border wall in the Big Bend region was discussed, with plaintiffs arguing that it's a remote region with few crossings where technology deployment has been extremely effective.
Apprehensions of people crossing the border illegally in the sector fell 74% from 2023 to 2025, and only 1.3% of the total border apprehensions in 2025 took place in the region, according to CBP data.
“ This IIRIRA provision has existed for a long time, and at no point has [border wall construction] in the Big Bend Sector been a priority until late 2025,” Democracy Forward lead attorney Laura Bakst said at the July hearing.
Representatives for DHS maintained that a border wall will increase security in the region and the agency’s goal is zero illegal crossings.
“You’re never going to get that,” Walton responded.
Sunday’s ruling doesn’t end the lawsuit immediately. The Trump administration has yet to file a formal response in the case to PMDD’s original complaint. Walton on Sunday ordered the government to file that response by Aug. 21.
This reporting was made possible by generous donations from supporters like you. Please consider making a donation to Marfa Public Radio to fund the journalism you rely on.
