A federal judge has ruled in favor of Arizona rancher Steven Smith, who argued that the Biden-Harris administration violated federal environmental law by halting border wall construction and reversing other key Trump-era immigration policies. The decision marks a critical moment in the ongoing debate over the Biden administration’s handling of immigration issues and its efforts to reverse the border policies of its predecessor.

Smith, a lifelong resident of Cochise County, Arizona, was one of the plaintiffs in the case Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The lawsuit contended that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) flouted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not conducting a required environmental review before halting the construction of the border wall and terminating the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), often referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” policy. Both initiatives had been key elements of former President Donald Trump’s border strategy.

The plaintiffs claimed that these policy changes, enacted shortly after President Joe Biden took office, led to significant environmental and economic harm, particularly for those living along the southern border. Smith testified that the surge in illegal immigration following the Biden administration’s decisions caused widespread damage to his property. Migrants trespassed on his land, stole water from his ranch, and left behind large amounts of trash that endangered his cattle, some of which died after ingesting the debris. Smith’s legal team successfully argued that these injuries were directly linked to the administration’s abrupt policy changes.

Border wall construction on the USA Mexico border in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona

At the heart of the case was NEPA, a landmark environmental law passed in 1969 that mandates federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of major actions before proceeding. The lawsuit contended that DHS violated this requirement by not conducting any environmental review when it halted border wall construction and ended the MPP in 2021. The plaintiffs argued that these decisions represented a “major federal action” under NEPA and that the failure to review their environmental impact rendered the actions illegal.

The court agreed, ruling that the Biden administration had indeed violated NEPA in its haste to reverse the border policies of the Trump administration. In his opinion, U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden wrote that DHS’s failure to conduct the required environmental analysis was a clear violation of the law, and he acknowledged the tangible harm experienced by Smith as a result of the policy reversals.

“Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), any agency contemplating a “major Federal action” must analyze its “environmental effects.” But in 2021, the Department of Homeland Security cancelled all border wall
construction and terminated the Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”) without performing any NEPA analysis. The ranchers have established this much already in litigation,” McFadden wrote. He said that halting the construction of the border wall without considering its environmental impact was a breach of this duty. The court also noted that two former high-ranking DHS officials testified that the policy changes were directly responsible for the increase in illegal immigration, which had a profound effect on Smith’s ranch.

The decision marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle over immigration policy and border security. Proponents of the border wall have long argued that its construction was crucial not only for national security but also for mitigating the environmental damage caused by unchecked illegal immigration along the border. The ruling also sets the stage for further legal challenges as stakeholders on both sides of the immigration debate continue to clash over the best path forward for securing the U.S.-Mexico border.

(FREE RED HAT: “Impeached. Arrested. Convicted. Shot. Still Standing”)