Two conservation organizations are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a Justice Department effort to resume border wall construction in Big Bend National Park, warning that the project could permanently damage one of the nation’s most distinctive natural landscapes.
The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks and Keep Big Bend Wild issued a joint statement Wednesday, Oct. 21, opposing the federal government’s request for Supreme Court intervention after a federal judge temporarily halted construction in the Big Bend region.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone issued a preliminary injunction Oct. 12 following an evidentiary hearing in which Keep Big Bend Wild presented testimony. The ruling halted border construction and ground-disturbing activities in the Big Bend Sector while the underlying legal challenge proceeds.
The Department of Justice subsequently sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court to allow construction to continue.
Emily Thompson, executive director of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, said the proposed infrastructure threatens the park’s natural and cultural resources.
“Construction of border barriers, roads, and associated infrastructure inside Big Bend National Park will do unprecedented damage to the park,” Thompson said.
Thompson described the administration’s plans as an attempt to introduce industrial-scale infrastructure into an environmentally sensitive landscape, arguing that the resulting damage would come at considerable taxpayer expense with little corresponding benefit.
She also expressed hope that the Supreme Court would uphold Cardone’s ruling, which she said recognized limits on the Department of Homeland Security’s authority.
Construction already damaged park, opponents say
According to Keep Big Bend Wild, federal contractors began bulldozing new routes through previously undisturbed portions of Big Bend National Park in early August without public notice.
The organization says at least six miles of new roads were carved through riparian forests and mountainous terrain before construction was suspended.
Bob Krumenaker, chairman of Keep Big Bend Wild and superintendent of Big Bend National Park from 2018 to 2023, criticized the government’s approach.
“The border is already secure in the Big Bend, the quietest stretch of the entire southern border,” Krumenaker said.
He argued that surveillance technology and other less intrusive security measures could provide additional protection without the environmental consequences of extensive new construction.
Krumenaker also criticized DHS for invoking emergency authority to bypass laws requiring public participation and environmental review.
He said the government has acknowledged that it does not have a specific construction plan for Big Bend National Park, despite already undertaking substantial ground-disturbing work.
The former superintendent characterized the project as an example of federal overreach and called on the Supreme Court to reject the government’s request.
Billions in border contracts raise concerns
In an Oct. 15 informational handout, Keep Big Bend Wild reported that DHS had awarded approximately $7.5 billion in no-bid contracts for projects in the Big Bend Sector, covering about 517 miles.
The organization said those awards included approximately $1.7 billion for construction in the national park along 118 miles of the international boundary.
The figures were provided by the organization and were not independently verified.
Conservation advocates argue that the scale of the proposed infrastructure is disproportionate to the level of unauthorized border crossings recorded in the region.
According to statistics cited by Keep Big Bend Wild, the Big Bend Sector accounts for approximately 26% of the southern border but fewer than 1% of illegal border apprehensions.
The organization said apprehensions within the national park itself represent an even smaller share.
Keep Big Bend Wild maintains that the area’s remoteness, mountainous terrain and natural barriers already contribute to border security.
The organization also argues that new roads, staging areas, utility infrastructure and construction camps could create environmental damage extending far beyond the footprint of any proposed border barrier.
Local communities could face economic consequences
Beyond environmental concerns, conservation advocates warn that industrial-scale construction could affect the tourism-dependent economies of communities surrounding the park.
Big Bend National Park and neighboring Big Bend Ranch State Park attract visitors from across the country and around the world, supporting businesses in Terlingua, Study Butte, Marathon, Alpine, Marfa and Presidio.
Keep Big Bend Wild argues that construction activity could diminish the wilderness experience that draws visitors to the region.
The organization also expressed concern about the demands a large construction workforce could place on local infrastructure, including housing, water supplies, electricity, waste disposal and medical services.
According to its handout, a construction camp housing 300 to 500 workers could place significant pressure on communities with limited services.
Groups seek permanent protections
Although the preliminary injunction temporarily halted construction, conservation advocates say a court victory alone would not provide sufficient long-term protection.
Keep Big Bend Wild is advocating federal legislation that would establish stronger safeguards for Big Bend National Park and surrounding public lands.
Among its proposals is a Protect Big Bend Forever Act that could rescind existing legal waivers and prevent future administrations from bypassing environmental protections to authorize additional border infrastructure without specific congressional approval.
The organization also supports wilderness designation for undeveloped portions of the national park, arguing that such protections could preserve the landscape without interfering with existing park facilities or uses.
The coalition emphasized that its opposition to the project does not amount to opposition to border security.
Instead, the groups maintain that national security and conservation can coexist through coordinated enforcement, modern surveillance technology and measures tailored to the region’s geography.
The legal dispute now places the future of construction in one of Texas’ most remote national parks before the nation’s highest court.
As of the organizations’ Oct. 21 statement, the Supreme Court’s response to the Justice Department’s emergency request remained pending.
“We urge the Supreme Court to reject this government overreach,” Krumenaker said.
