Recommended
A federal court in Texas issued a ruling on Friday that temporarily prevents President Donald Trump's administration from building a border wall and other infrastructure in the Big Bend region of Texas, in a victory for opponents who have rejected what has long been one of Trump's campaign promises.
The news is a victory for landowners, businesses, and environmentalists in the region, who have joined forces to oppose the planned infrastructure projects, which are part of a $46 billion plan by the Trump administration to cover the southern border with a combination of 30-foot steel bollards, vehicle barriers, roads, and surveillance technology.
Cardone noted in his ruling that it was “likely that the plaintiffs would succeed on the merits of at least one of the claims presented, that there is a likelihood that they will suffer serious and irreparable harm without an injunction, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in their favor."
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) defended the project in a statement on Friday.
“We stand by our assessment and remain confident in our legal authority to protect the border while preserving the unique landscape of the Big Bend region,” the agency stated. “We are working with the Department of Justice on the next steps.”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The judge's ruling includes Big Bend National Park, where opposition to the wall led the government to briefly pause construction.
Opponents of the border wall project have argued that the Big Bend region in Texas is so remote and the terrain so rugged that it acts as its own deterrent against illegal immigration, and that the U.S. government violated the law when it issued a series of waivers that allowed it to bypass numerous regulations to accelerate the border wall infrastructure projects.
The lawsuit, filed by an environmental organization, defenders of a historic church in Ruidosa, and a river guide, argued that the DHS erred by bypassing regulations intended to protect the environment, culture, and archeology of regions such as the Big Bend area.
Laiken Jordahl, of the Center for Biological Diversity, which filed the lawsuit, called Cardone's ruling a “total victory.”
“They are going to send the bulldozers back until she rules on the merits of the case,” Jordahl commented. “This is a historic day for Big Bend, for Texas, and for the Constitution.”
The court's decision was announced just weeks after the U.S. government installed the first panels of the border wall in the Big Bend sector in mid-September.
The border wall project through the Big Bend sector has sparked opposition in various sectors.
Much of the opposition has focused on the CBP's plans within Big Bend National Park, which is prized for its beautiful landscapes, limestone cliffs, and views of a crystal-clear night sky.
When bulldozers were seen clearing land in the park in August, widespread opposition was triggered, and both Republicans and Democrats called on the government to stop. The CBP paused all activity there, but that pause expired this week. The government has said it is re-evaluating the plans for the National Park, but has not yet said what it will do there.
Park advocates said on Friday that they were pleased with the judge's ruling, but urged the government to repair the damage already caused to Big Bend National Park and to develop alternative plans.
“Big Bend is no place for border barriers. It is time for the government to sit down at the table with the border communities that know Big Bend best, repair the damage from this ill-conceived project, and find new solutions,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president of the National Parks Conservation Association, in a statement.
The judge's ruling extends to areas upstream and downstream of the National Park, where the CBP has planned a series of border infrastructure projects that would largely require building across privately owned land.
In those areas, the government has been working to obtain permission from local landowners to survey and build on their land, but in documents recently filed with the court, it said it was prepared to refer some cases to the Department of Justice in which it had been unable to obtain permission from the owners.
[Publicidad]