A federal judge is allowing the Department of Homeland Security to proceed for now with plans to construct a border wall through a levee system protecting a small Texas town on the border with Mexico. The decision, issued late Sunday by Judge Reggie B. Walton, rejects arguments from the locality that the wall could trigger severe flooding and marks a victory for the administration as it pushes forward with its $46 billion border wall project extending from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.
Federal Judge Denies Stay Against Border Wall Construction
The town of Presidio, which has a population of approximately 3,200 residents, is protected by a series of berms and levees constructed along the Rio Grande and its tributaries during the 1970s and 1980s to combat flooding. The Presidio Municipal Development District sued the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection in June, claiming the agencies violated the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 by seeking to build along the city’s levee system without obtaining approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Legal Battles and Waiver Authority
In response to the legal challenge, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin waived the Rivers and Harbors Act on July 2, allowing the agencies to bypass it entirely. Judge Walton wrote in his ruling that the July 2 waiver defeats any claim that the defendants violated
the statute. The court noted that the DHS Secretary possesses broad authority to waive legal requirements for border infrastructure under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, adding that it was clear that Congress did not intend to limit the Secretary of DHS’s waiver authority.
Judge Walton acknowledged the community’s concerns, writing: For the foregoing reasons, despite the understandable concerns expressed by the plaintiff regarding the harms it and the plaintiff’s residents might sustain by the potential construction of the Smart Wall, the Court is compelled to deny the plaintiff’s motion for a stay.
The judge also observed that the preliminary nature of the wall plans weighed against the plaintiffs, noting that conspicuously absent from the plaintiff’s allegations is a claim that there has been any action that has actually impacted the levee system itself.
Local Concerns and Border Apprehensions
Lawyers representing the development district argued during court hearings that the government’s proposal to replace the earthen slope of the existing levee with a concrete wall topped with 30-foot steel bollard panels could compromise the flash-flood defense system. When the district previously asked Customs and Border Protection for additional project details, officials stated that the information could not be shared due to national security.
Opponents of the project have also questioned the urgency of completing the wall given that migrant crossings are already low. According to CBP data cited in court discussions, apprehensions of individuals crossing the border illegally in the Big Bend sector fell 74% from 2023 to 2025, with only 1.3% of total border apprehensions taking place in the region in 2025.
Following the court’s decision, the national nonprofit Democracy Forward, which represents the development district, released a statement: We are very disappointed that the court will allow this potentially disastrous construction to continue, but we remain committed to protecting the Big Bend area and those who rely on the threatened levees.
Related reading