A federal judge has ruled that the Biden administration violated environmental laws when it halted border wall construction in 2021 in a case that was brought forward by an Arizona rancher who claimed that the policy change led to environmental harm on his property.

The court found that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) failed to perform necessary environmental reviews, as required by federal law, before stopping construction on the southern border wall, as Fox News reports.

The lawsuit, Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, centered around the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA mandates federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of their actions through an Environmental Assessment (EA). According to the suit, the DHS did not complete this assessment before halting the construction of the border wall, a decision made under the Biden administration.

Rancher Sues Over Environmental Harm to Property

Steven Smith, a rancher from Cochise County, Arizona, argued that his land suffered from increased environmental damage following the administration’s policy reversal. Smith claimed that the end of the "Remain in Mexico" policy led to a rise in migrant activity on his ranch. This increase in movement, Smith testified, resulted in environmental degradation that directly impacted his property.

According to court documents, Smith testified that the number of migrants crossing his land dramatically rose after the policy change. He described finding trash left behind by trespassers on a daily basis. This litter, which included plastic and other non-biodegradable materials, affected his cattle, which sometimes ingested the debris.

Migrants' Use of Water Resources Poses Threat

Another significant issue for Smith was the depletion of water resources on his property. Migrants frequently used his land's water sources, which were meant for his cattle and other wildlife. The court acknowledged that this depletion resulted in thousands of gallons of water being lost, an issue that could take days to remedy.

Smith argued that the depletion not only threatened the health of his livestock but also jeopardized local wildlife that relied on the same water sources. In his testimony, Smith emphasized that this increased activity was directly tied to the administration’s decision to halt the border wall construction and end related border security policies.

Court Recognizes Environmental Impact on Rancher's Land

Judge Trevor McFadden, who presided over the case, ruled that Smith had indeed suffered “concrete and particularized injuries” due to the administration’s failure to follow NEPA guidelines. The judge noted that Smith’s testimony and evidence pointed to a direct link between the Biden administration's actions and the environmental harm to his property.

While the case primarily focused on the environmental aspects of border policy, it also touched on the broader implications of population growth and its indirect effects on areas near the southern border. The judge referenced the termination of the "Remain in Mexico" policy, suggesting that the change led to predictable consequences, such as increased migrant traffic in certain areas.

Failure to Conduct Environmental Review Violates NEPA

NEPA is a foundational environmental law in the United States that requires federal agencies to consider the environmental consequences of their actions. In this case, the DHS failed to conduct the required Environmental Assessment before reversing border wall policies. The court found that this failure to comply with NEPA left Smith and others in the region vulnerable to environmental and property damage.

The judge’s ruling underscored the need for federal agencies to follow established procedures, especially when it comes to policies that have significant environmental impacts. Without proper review, actions taken by the government could lead to unintended harm, as seen in Smith’s case.

Rancher's Testimony Highlights Daily Struggles

Smith’s testimony painted a vivid picture of the daily challenges he faced as a rancher near the border. He described waking up each day to find new debris scattered across his land, a direct consequence of increased foot traffic from migrants. He also spoke about the water crisis on his property, noting that it was not uncommon to lose significant amounts of water due to unauthorized use by those crossing his land.

Court documents further explained that while the water depletion may have provided relief to “thirsty trespassers,” it ultimately created a critical shortage for Smith’s cattle. The recovery process, he explained, often took days, leaving his livestock and the local wildlife in a vulnerable state.

Legal Precedent Set for Environmental Reviews

This case sets an important legal precedent for how environmental reviews must be conducted in future policy decisions. Judge McFadden’s ruling emphasized the necessity of following NEPA regulations to protect landowners and the environment from unforeseen consequences.

Smith’s victory in court may also pave the way for other lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s border policies, especially where environmental damage is concerned. The case highlights the delicate balance between immigration policy and environmental protection, a debate that has gained traction in recent years.

Conclusion

A federal judge has ruled that the Biden administration violated environmental law by halting border wall construction without conducting the necessary reviews.

The lawsuit, brought by Arizona rancher Steven Smith, demonstrated that the Department of Homeland Security’s failure to comply with NEPA regulations led to significant environmental harm to his property.

The decision underscores the importance of following federal environmental guidelines in policymaking to prevent unintended damage to private landowners and natural resources.