A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from resuming border barrier, road and surveillance construction across Texas’ Big Bend region, ruling that challengers are likely to succeed on at least one of their claims and could suffer irreparable harm if work continues.

By yourNEWS Media Newsroom

A federal judge in Texas on Friday ordered the Trump administration to halt construction of border barriers, patrol roads and related infrastructure across the Big Bend region, stopping work that federal officials had indicated could resume following the expiration of a temporary pause.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone issued the emergency injunction after a hearing in El Paso, directing the Department of Homeland Security and other federal defendants to stop construction and ground-disturbing work while a lawsuit challenging the government’s expedited border-security plans proceeds.

“Effective immediately and until the Court orders otherwise, Defendants SHALL NOT build border barrier or related infrastructure, or engage in any construction or ground disturbing activities, in the Big Bend Sector until and unless Defendants comply with all applicable laws,” Cardone wrote.

Cardone found that the plaintiffs were “likely to succeed on the merits of at least one of the claims in suit,” faced a likelihood of “serious, irreparable harm” without court intervention and had shown that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction, according to The Associated Press.

The order affects planned infrastructure within and around Big Bend National Park and elsewhere in the Border Patrol’s Big Bend Sector, a vast stretch of West Texas containing desert, mountain and Rio Grande ecosystems.

The government’s plans include vehicle barriers, new and improved patrol roads, lighting, cameras, sensors and other detection technology. Customs and Border Protection has said the project does not call for a 30-foot steel bollard wall inside Big Bend National Park, instead relying in the park on lower-profile vehicle barriers, surveillance equipment and roads.

A $1.7 billion federal contract awarded in May to Southwest Valley Constructors was described in government spending records as being for border wall work in the Big Bend region. CBP subsequently said the money would finance 17 miles of vehicle barriers and patrol roads along with approximately 205 miles of what the agency calls “system attributes,” including patrol roads and surveillance technology, according to The Texas Tribune.

The Big Bend work forms part of the Trump administration’s much larger effort to construct or upgrade barriers, roads and surveillance systems along the southern border. The AP reported that the broader border-security initiative totals approximately $46 billion.

Friday’s injunction stems from a lawsuit filed by Friends of the Ruidosa Church, the Center for Biological Diversity and Big Bend-area river guide and landowner Billy Miller. The plaintiffs contend that DHS exceeded its constitutional authority when it waived dozens of federal laws to accelerate construction in the region.

The original lawsuit, filed in April in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, argues that the federal government improperly used waiver authority contained in federal immigration law to bypass environmental, public-land and historic-preservation statutes. The plaintiffs later expanded the case after the administration issued additional waivers covering Big Bend National Park and Big Bend Ranch State Park.

Among the laws waived for portions of the project were the Endangered Species Act, the National Park Service Organic Act and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, according to the Center for Biological Diversity. The organization says the action marked the first use of such a broad collection of environmental waivers inside a national park.

The administration maintains that Congress has given the executive branch authority to waive legal requirements that could impede construction of barriers and other infrastructure needed to secure the international border.

The plaintiffs argue that the scope of the waiver power being asserted by DHS goes beyond what Congress constitutionally authorized. Their complaint asks the court to invalidate the Big Bend waiver and prevent construction unless the government complies with laws that otherwise would apply.

Environmental groups and many residents have focused particular attention on Big Bend National Park, a remote landscape along the Rio Grande known for desert ecosystems, mountains, canyons and wildlife that includes black bears, mountain lions, bobcats and hundreds of bird species.

Construction activity became visible inside the park in August near Santa Elena Canyon and Mariscal Mountain. Contractors brought bulldozers and other heavy machinery into the area and began clearing routes associated with planned patrol roads and vehicle barriers.

The activity triggered opposition from environmental organizations, tourism businesses, residents and elected officials from both parties. Critics argued that extensive road construction, blasting and permanent barriers could damage habitat, archaeological resources, scenic areas and recreational access to the Rio Grande.

CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott announced a pause in construction activities on Aug. 17 while the agency conducted additional evaluations and consulted local officials.

The pause was later extended but ultimately expired Sept. 30.

Government attorneys indicated in court filings this week that the restriction had lapsed and that construction could resume, prompting the plaintiffs to renew their request for immediate judicial intervention. The Center for Biological Diversity said heavy equipment remained staged throughout the region and work could have restarted without Friday’s order.

“This is a historic victory,” Laiken Jordahl, national public lands advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, told AFP following the ruling. “The fight’s not over, but today’s injunction is a win for people and wildlife across West Texas and across the country, and it proves that no president can bulldoze a national park for political theater and expect to get away with it.”

In a separate statement issued by the organization Friday, Jordahl called the ruling a victory for Big Bend but acknowledged that the underlying litigation remains unresolved.

CBP and DHS did not immediately provide the AP with comments following Cardone’s decision.

The dispute involves considerably more than the boundaries of Big Bend National Park. The Border Patrol’s Big Bend Sector covers roughly 500 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, including large expanses of sparsely populated and rugged terrain.

CBP’s plans vary by location. Some portions of the region are slated for physical barriers, while others rely more heavily on roads, cameras, sensors and other technology intended to identify people or vehicles crossing the border.

The $1.7 billion contract drew attention earlier this year because its federal description referred to “border wall in Big Bend Texas,” even after Scott had publicly said the agency would not construct a traditional 30-foot wall inside Big Bend National Park.

CBP later clarified that the contract would be used for a broader mix of infrastructure and technology and said the national and state parks would not receive the same tall bollard barriers used elsewhere along the southern border.

The agency said its approach would instead use “technology like cameras and sensors, along with limited, low-profile, post-on-rail barriers in strategic areas designed to restrict vehicle access while leveraging the natural barriers that already exist in the area.”

Opponents nevertheless argue that roads, blasting, construction staging and vehicle barriers could permanently alter environmentally sensitive sections of the region even without a full-scale wall.

The Center for Biological Diversity says contractors have cleared staging areas, established worker camps and drilled water wells in preparation for construction. The group also says some planned routes through rugged terrain near Mariscal Mountain could require extensive blasting. Those assertions are part of the plaintiffs’ case and have not yet been finally adjudicated.

Border-security activity in Big Bend is comparatively low relative to some other parts of the southern border. The conservation group, citing CBP statistics, said the Big Bend Sector accounted for approximately 1.3% of nationwide Border Patrol apprehensions in 2025.

The administration has maintained that low current crossing numbers do not eliminate the need for long-term infrastructure and that physical barriers, roads and surveillance technology can deter illegal crossings while allowing Border Patrol agents to respond more effectively across remote territory.

Friday’s order does not permanently cancel the Big Bend project or resolve the constitutional questions raised in the lawsuit.

Instead, Cardone’s injunction freezes construction while the case proceeds and prevents the administration from relying on the disputed waivers to restart ground-disturbing work unless the court later changes its order or the government demonstrates compliance with applicable law.

The ruling also represents a significant escalation in a dispute that until now had largely been managed through temporary administrative pauses and negotiations over the precise scope of construction.

With the Sept. 30 pause expired and the government preparing to resume work, the decision transfers control over the immediate future of the Big Bend project from the administration to the federal court.

Construction across the affected area will remain stopped unless Cardone modifies the injunction or the government succeeds in overturning it as the broader legal challenge continues.

Original article