A coalition of Big Bend landowners and the nonprofit Conserve Big Bend filed a federal lawsuit on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to block the Trump administration’s plans to construct a border wall and related infrastructure through the region. The lawsuit names Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Rodney Scott as defendants.
The legal challenge centers on the administration’s designation of the Big Bend area as a region of 'high illegal entry', a prerequisite under Section 102 of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act that allows DHS to waive federal laws and expedite barrier construction. Plaintiffs argue the designation is legally unsupported by CBP’s own data, which shows the Big Bend sector accounted for just 1.3% of southwest border apprehensions in 2025—the lowest among nine sectors.
Legal and Historical Context
The lawsuit was filed by Conserve Big Bend, a coalition representing approximately 230 landowners, alongside six individual plaintiffs. Among them is the Pineda family, which owns 270 acres near Redford, Texas, a property in their family since the 1870s that supports cattle, alfalfa fields, and a pecan orchard. The complaint states that CBP sent letters threatening federal condemnation proceedings if the family refused to grant access to their land for construction.
The plaintiffs allege the administration’s designation of the Big Bend region as a 'high illegal entry' zone is contradicted by long-term data. According to the lawsuit, the Big Bend sector has consistently recorded the lowest apprehension rates in the southwest border region over the past five years, accounting for 1.16% of total apprehensions annually. The complaint argues this undermines the legal justification for fast-tracking construction under the 1996 statute.
Environmental and Cultural Concerns
Beyond the legal dispute, the lawsuit highlights ecological and cultural impacts of the proposed wall. The Big Bend region is home to Big Bend National Park, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, and supports diverse wildlife, including endangered species. Plaintiffs assert the wall could disrupt water access, including the Rio Grande, and disturb family graves and historic sites. Archaeologist David Keller, a specialist in the region’s heritage, described the administration’s plans as having 'stirred up a hornet’s nest' due to the area’s ecological significance and local opposition.
The lawsuit seeks to block construction and overturn the federal designation of the region as a high-entry zone. It also requests a judge to invalidate the DHS’s authority to waive environmental and other federal laws in the area. The plaintiffs are represented by legal counsel, though specific attorneys were not named in the filings.
Administration’s Stance and Broader Border Policy
The Trump administration has ramped up border infrastructure projects, allocating $46 billion to construct 30-foot steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers, and surveillance technology along the 2,000-mile southern border. The effort has faced multiple lawsuits and bipartisan opposition, including from sheriffs, elected officials, environmental groups, and landowners across Texas.
A CBP spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. The agency has previously defended the wall’s necessity, citing national security concerns and the need to deter smuggling and unauthorized crossings. However, the lawsuit argues that the Big Bend region’s low traffic makes it an inappropriate target for such measures.
Reactions from the Community
At a press conference in Marfa, Texas, landowners and supporters gathered outside the Presidio County Courthouse, holding signs with messages such as 'Landowners against Border Wall' and 'Don’t Mess with Big Bend'. Some attendees wore cowboy hats and Texas flags, reflecting the region’s cultural identity. The event underscored the strong local opposition to the administration’s plans, despite some residents previously advocating for tougher border enforcement.
The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal challenges to the administration’s border policies, with similar cases filed in other states. Legal experts suggest the case could hinge on whether the Big Bend region meets the statutory definition of 'high illegal entry' or if the DHS’s designation was arbitrary or politically motivated.
Next Steps
The lawsuit has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in Washington, D.C. No hearing date has been set. Legal observers note that the case could take months or years to resolve, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court if appeals are filed. In the meantime, construction in the Big Bend region remains halted pending the outcome of the litigation and any judicial rulings on the plaintiffs’ requests for an injunction.