Big Bend landowners sued the Trump administration Monday to stop border construction they say threatens their farms, ranches and access to the Rio Grande, arguing the government's own immigration numbers contradict its justification for the project.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., by Conserve Big Bend and six landowners, asks a judge to block construction and overturn federal determinations labeling the region an area of "high illegal entry." It names the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection and their leaders, Markwayne Mullin and Rodney Scott, as defendants.
For three plaintiffs in the Pineda family, the dispute involves about 270 acres near Redford that have been in their family since the 1870s. The land supports cattle, alfalfa fields and a pecan orchard, with water from the Rio Grande sustaining its most productive acreage, according to the complaint.
After the family refused to grant access to the property, CBP sent letters saying it would be necessary to initiate federal condemnation proceedings within 90 days to acquire the land over their objections, the lawsuit says.
DHS and CBP did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The family argues that a barrier would cut off irrigation and drinking water for livestock while trapping floodwater and debris that normally drain toward the river. Their property also contains burial sites and archaeological resources they say construction could damage.
Other landowners described similar concerns during a Monday news conference at the Presidio County Courthouse in Marfa.
"This wall will either separate us from our family cemetery, or it'll separate us from our source of life, the river," said fifth-generation cattle rancher Yolanda Alvarado, who also serves as a regional director with Conserve Big Bend. "We live every day on edge, not knowing what will become of our home, our ranching operation, or our future."
The lawsuit centers on a provision of a 1996 immigration law authorizing border barriers and roads in areas of high illegal entry. The law also gives the homeland security secretary broad authority to waive legal requirements to speed construction. The landowners argue DHS cannot use those powers in Big Bend without establishing that the region meets the law's threshold.
CBP recorded 3,096 apprehensions in the Big Bend Sector in fiscal year 2025, down 74% from 11,823 in fiscal year 2023. In a December announcement, the agency credited enforcement policies and improved detection capabilities, including 55 autonomous surveillance towers, with helping reduce crossings.
The sector covers 517 miles, roughly a quarter of the U.S.-Mexico border, but accounted for about 1.3% of southwest border apprehensions in fiscal year 2025. The complaint says Big Bend has recorded the fewest annual apprehensions of any southwest border sector for 53 consecutive years.
"You cannot legally bypass the laws of this country by fabricating an emergency that does not exist," said Clara Bensen, a Conserve Big Bend board member and communications director for its No Big Bend Wall initiative.
DHS has defended the need for additional barriers. In a February notice, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem cited more than 89,000 apprehensions in Big Bend over five fiscal years, along with drug seizures. She said additional construction was necessary to fulfill the department's mandate to prevent unlawful entries, despite improvements in border security.
The lawsuit argues that combining five years of apprehensions obscured the decline in crossings and that DHS never explained why those totals qualified as high. It also challenges the agency's reliance on drug seizures across the sector, saying those figures do not establish where the drugs crossed the border.
The plaintiffs further argue DHS failed to assess whether barriers were the most practical and effective option for the terrain and denied landowners a meaningful opportunity to weigh in on decisions affecting their property.
The five Big Bend construction projects extend beyond the Border Patrol sector into Val Verde County. Plans vary by location and include 30-foot steel walls, vehicle barriers, patrol roads, lighting, cameras and sensors. Conserve Big Bend says approximately 65% of the roughly 600-mile project footprint is private property.
Near Langtry, landowner and former National Park Service biologist Raymond Skiles said researchers have identified nine rock art sites on his family's property in the path of, or within 500 meters of, the proposed barrier. He warned that blasting through limestone could dislodge painted rock and damage artwork thousands of years old.
Skiles said archaeological tours also provide income for area landowners, creating another potential loss if construction damages the sites or changes their surroundings.
The new lawsuit seeks a broader halt than the existing pause on construction activity inside Big Bend National Park, which Conserve Big Bend said has been extended through Sept. 30. Bensen said the plaintiffs intend to seek a temporary restraining order while pursuing their case.
Opposition at Monday's announcement included Laura Allen, a former Val Verde County judge who said she ran as a Republican and voted for Trump twice.
Allen said the proposed route would cut through her family's ranch more than two miles from the river and Lake Amistad, separating working facilities from other parts of the property and affecting a county road. Nearly 100 homeowners in subdivisions built on the family's land also face uncertainty about access, she said.
"We get an answer that there's going to be gates," Allen said. "Gates aren't an answer."
Allen credited Trump with securing the border but said the administration should stop the project.
"Thank you, President Trump, but stop," she said. "You succeeded."
Sign up for the Daily Briefing from the Austin American-Statesman. Start your day with the must-read headlines from Austin's most trusted news source.
This article originally published at Big Bend landowners sue Trump administration to stop Texas border wall construction.