Texas landowners feared border wall would cut off Rio Grande access; judge blocks Big Bend construction

A federal judge has blocked further construction of border barriers in Texas’ Big Bend region after landowners and local groups warned that the planned infrastructure could cut off their access to the Rio Grande and permanently alter the landscape.US District Judge Kathleen Cardone on Friday granted an environmental group's request for a preliminary injunction, keeping a halt on “ground-disturbing activities” in place while a broader legal challenge to the border projects moves through court.At the end of Friday's hearing, Cardone asked those in the courtroom to remain calm as she read her order from the bench. She found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their constitutional claims challenging the construction.The lawsuit was filed in April by the Center for Biological Diversity on behalf of the Friends of the Ruidosa Church, a nonprofit seeking to preserve a historic church in Presidio County, and Danny William Miller, a Rio Grande river guide and landowner whose property in Redford could be affected by the planned wall.The plaintiffs argue that five contracted border wall projects in the region are unconstitutional on several grounds, including that they violate the separation of powers and deprive citizens of their land.

Landowners warn of losing access to the river

For residents living along the Texas-Mexico border, the dispute is not limited to where a barrier would be built. They say the infrastructure could change how they use their land and reach the Rio Grande.According to the Big Bend Sentinel, Texas-based news outlet, Miller, who works as a river guide, told the court that having a wall built across his property and losing access to the river would be like “a bullet to the head”.He also argued that the desert landscape, once altered by construction, could not simply be restored.His work as a river guide, he said, would become “a tour of the military industrial complex, rather than a tour of the wilderness.”Bill Guerra-Addington, a Hudspeth County resident, similarly warned that a border barrier would effectively destroy his ranch.“They’re taking the river away from us, and it’s devastating,” he testified.Zeynep Graves, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, argued that the consequences of the construction would extend beyond environmental damage.“The harm reaches far beyond the landscape itself,” Graves said in closing arguments.The lawsuit documents what the plaintiffs say could be lost if border barrier construction continues along the Rio Grande.

Government says barriers are needed for border control

The federal government has defended the need for physical border infrastructure, including in remote areas such as Big Bend.Officials argue that barriers are necessary to achieve what they describe as “operational control” of the border, meaning zero unauthorised border crossings.Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made the case in a series of waivers that eased contracting requirements across the southwestern border.“Since the President took office, DHS has delivered the most secure border in history,” Noem wrote.

“More can be done, however.”The government has also raised the possibility that changes in migrant routes could increase pressure on the Big Bend region if barriers are expanded elsewhere along the southern border.CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott has said the agency's goal includes protecting Big Bend National Park from potential future cartel activity.

Why Big Bend has become a flashpoint

The Big Bend sector stretches across a large portion of the Texas-Mexico border and includes both Big Bend National Park and Big Bend Ranch State Park.The region accounts for about a quarter of the length of the US-Mexico border but has historically recorded only between 1% and 3% of migrant apprehensions by US Customs and Border Protection each year.That contrast has become central to opposition against the planned infrastructure.News of the government's plans for barriers in Big Bend emerged in January 2026. Since then, opposition has grown across the region, bringing together residents from both sides of the political spectrum.The dispute has also pushed the government to modify aspects of its plans for physical border infrastructure, which includes walls, roads, fences, lighting and sensors.The projects involved in the wider programme represent more than $7.5 billion in government contracts.Despite the opposition, construction activity has continued in parts of the region. Contractors have bulldozed new roads in Big Bend National Park after the government waived the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act to facilitate what it described as the “expeditious construction of barriers and roads” along the border.

Six lawsuits challenge Big Bend wall plans

Friday's ruling is the latest development in a growing legal fight over the border infrastructure.Six lawsuits have now been filed over the planned Big Bend wall.Earlier this week, a judge rejected a request for a temporary restraining order in a separate case seeking to stop work in and around Big Bend National Park. Construction r.