Tiny Texas Town Fights Trump Border Wall in Washington Court

WASHINGTON — On one side: a small community of 3,200 residents in rural West Texas. On the other: the full weight of the Trump administration’s $46 billion border wall initiative. On July 22, the two sides faced off in a federal courtroom in Washington, D.C., where a judge heard arguments in a case that could determine whether a 30-foot steel wall is built on top of the levee system protecting the town of Presidio from catastrophic flooding.

The lawsuit, filed June 17 by the Presidio Municipal Development District (PMDD), argues that the Trump administration violated the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 by failing to obtain approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before planning construction on or near the Presidio Flood Control Project. According to AP News, the town contends that replacing the earthen slope of the existing levee with a concrete wall topped with 30-foot steel bollard panels would compromise flood protection for approximately 52 square miles of urban and agricultural land.

A Levee Built for Survival

The Presidio Flood Control Project was built in the 1970s and 1980s along the Rio Grande and its tributaries. After a devastating flood in 2008 that required a national response, the system underwent millions of dollars in upgrades. The levee is owned by the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) and is the primary line of defense against flash flooding in a region where the Rio Grande has historically posed a serious threat.

“Here in Presidio, the river has never divided us. It’s the reason our whole community is here, on both sides,” John Kennedy, PMDD’s executive director, said in a statement reported by Marfa Public Radio. “The levee is what lets us live safely alongside it, and we’re asking that it get the flood-safety review the law requires before anyone builds on it.”

The Legal Battle

The case centers on the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which requires engineering approval from the Army Corps of Engineers before significant alterations can be made to levees and flood control systems. The PMDD argues that border agencies have not sought — let alone obtained — that approval.

Two weeks after the lawsuit was filed, the Department of Homeland Security responded by waiving the Rivers and Harbors Act entirely, using broad authority granted under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. As the Texas Tribune reported, DHS had previously waived a slew of environmental, cultural resource protection, and contracting laws to expedite construction in the Big Bend region, but had not initially included the 1899 law.

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of the Democracy Forward Foundation, which is representing Presidio pro bono, said the administration’s response was telling. “When faced with our lawsuit raising the government’s non-compliance with the Rivers and Harbors Act and related safety concerns, of course DHS’s response was to rush to waive the legal requirements of that law too,” she said, as reported by AP News.

The Government’s Position

The Trump administration argues that no final wall design has been decided for the Presidio area, and that DHS has the legal authority to waive regulations to build the wall as it pursues its goal of “zero illegal crossings.” A Justice Department lawyer, Alexander Yun, told Judge Reggie Walton that construction could begin in late August, September, or October 2026.

DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has testified that the preliminary layer of the wall will be finished by mid-2027, and CBP head Rodney Scott has stated the agency is installing 6 miles of wall per week. Fisher Sand & Gravel — a company previously sued by the federal government over poor wall construction in South Texas — was awarded a $1.2 billion contract in March to build the section through Presidio.

Low Crossings, High Controversy

The Big Bend Sector, the geographically largest Border Patrol sector covering 77 Texas counties and 517 miles of border, recorded only 3,096 migrant encounters in fiscal year 2025 — just 1.3% of the national total. Encounters have dropped 74% compared to two years prior. Yet the administration has described the region as “an area of high illegal entry.”

Judge Walton appeared skeptical of the government’s position, noting during the hearing that “it’s just a reality that people will always try to cross the border.” He also acknowledged struggling with the limits of his authority given Congress’s grant of waiver power to DHS.

Broader Opposition

The Presidio case is part of a wider conflict over the border wall in Big Bend. Private landowners facing eminent domain, environmental groups concerned about ecological damage, and Native American tribes who say construction is desecrating sacred sites have all voiced opposition. The $46 billion “smart wall” program combines physical barriers with surveillance technology, including autonomous towers, buried fiber-optic cables, and AI-powered cameras.

What’s Next

Judge Walton indicated he would issue a ruling within a week. If he grants an injunction, it could temporarily halt construction in Presidio while the case proceeds. DHS has asked that any injunction be limited to the 12.75-mile levee expanse rather than the entire 175-mile Big Bend project.

Louis Katz, a Democracy Forward lawyer, warned that the way DHS is waiving laws amounts to an “extraordinary exertion of authority.” The outcome of this case could set a precedent for other communities along the border challenging the administration’s waiver powers.

For Presidio, the stakes are immediate and existential. As Mayor John Ferguson told Marfa Public Radio: “I see more and more evidence here of machinery rolling into town, a lot of work trucks that are obviously not from here. They’re getting ready to in some capacity get to work.”

The question now is whether a federal judge will let them.