A woman hold’s a sign to protest plans by the Trump administration to build a section of the border wall at Big Bend National Park in Study Butte, Texas, on August 15, 2026.Ronaldo Schemidt/AFP via Getty
This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
Federal Judge Kathleen Cardone granted a preliminary injunction Friday to halt construction on the border wall in Texas’ expansive Big Bend sector, including the national and state parks.
Cardone read a brief order from the bench after hearing more than four hours of testimony from conservation groups and residents of the Big Bend region, known internationally for its dark night skies, abundant biodiversity and rugged river canyons.
Cardone said that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in at least one of their claims and to suffer irreparable harm if construction continues. Her ruling stops border barrier construction in the entire Big Bend sector—which spans more than 500 miles across West Texas—until the federal government complies with all applicable laws.
An analyst testified that the Big Bend sector is a “distant last place” in unauthorized border crossings, contrary to the government’s claims.
The ruling applies to all of Big Bend National Park, Big Bend Ranch State Park, and the border along the Rio Grande in the rest of the sector. The injunction will remain in place while the court considers the lawsuit, which was filed in April.
Plaintiffs and their supporters embraced and wept outside the federal courtroom in El Paso Friday afternoon following the ruling. Many had traveled hundreds of miles from Big Bend communities, including Terlingua and Marfa, to attend.
The Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Ruidosa Church, and Danny Miller Jr., a river guide, sued the US Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Markwayne Mullin for waiving dozens of laws to fast-track the border wall through the Big Bend region. The Texas Civil Rights Project and the Center for Biological Diversity are representing the plaintiffs.
The federal waivers cover the entire Big Bend region. This had allowed construction to proceed without following the National Environmental Policy Act, the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act and many other laws. Under the injunction, the effect of the waivers is stayed.
Customs and Border Protection has changed its plans for border barrier construction in the Big Bend region numerous times since February. The federal government currently plans to build vehicle barriers and access roads within the state and national parks. A 30-foot steel wall is planned for private land in Big Bend outside the parks.
One plaintiff, a river guide, called the construction a “visible scar that will never go away.”
In mid-August, advocates documented excavators and bulldozers clearing land within Big Bend National Park. Customs and Border Protection then issued a construction pause in the park on August 17. That pause lifted this week. Construction recently began on a new 30-foot steel wall in Hudspeth County, east of El Paso.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs called eight people to testify Friday. Their arguments centered on the lack of evidence that the Big Bend sector is an area of “high illegal entry,” as stated in the federal waivers. They argued that the plaintiffs were already suffering and will continue to suffer harm if border wall construction continues.
Adam Isaacson, an analyst at the Washington Office on Latin America, presented data showing the Big Bend sector is a “distant last place” in unauthorized border crossings compared to the nine sectors that make up the US border with Mexico. The plaintiffs’ attorneys explained that they requested granular data about how many people are detained in Big Bend National Park, as opposed to the vast area that makes up the rest of the sector, and the federal government never supplied that information.
Miller, the river guide, said his business depends on access to the Rio Grande and explained how property he owns along the river will be irrevocably damaged if the wall is built.
He described border wall construction as a “visible scar that will never go away.” Miller and several other individuals giving testimony broke down in tears when asked how a border wall could change their relationship to the Rio Grande.
Department of Justice attorneys presented few counterarguments and did not present any witnesses. The White House referred questions to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“We stand by our assessment and remain confident in our legal authorities to secure the border while preserving the unique landscape of the Big Bend region,” a Customs and Border Protection spokesperson said. “We are working with the Department of Justice on next steps.”
