A federal judge has sided with Arizona rancher Steven Smith, who claimed that the Biden-Harris administration violated federal environmental law by stopping border wall construction and overturning key immigration policies from the Trump era. The ruling represents a significant development in the ongoing debate regarding the Biden administration’s approach to immigration and its attempts to undo the border policies established by its predecessor.
Smith, a lifelong resident of Cochise County, Arizona, was among the plaintiffs in the case Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The lawsuit argued that DHS violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to conduct a necessary environmental review before stopping border wall construction and terminating the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), commonly known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy. Both measures were central components of former President Donald Trump’s border strategy.
The plaintiffs argued that these policy changes, implemented soon after President Joe Biden took office, resulted in substantial environmental and economic harm, especially for residents along the southern border. Smith testified that the increase in illegal immigration following the Biden administration’s decisions led to extensive damage to his property. Migrants trespassed on his land, stole water from his ranch, and left behind significant amounts of trash that posed a threat to his cattle, some of which died after consuming the debris. Smith’s legal team effectively contended that these injuries were directly tied to the administration’s sudden policy shifts.
Biden placed Vice President Kamala Harris in charge of mitigating the border chaos, but her lack of progress, evidenced by years of record illegal crossings and fentanyl smuggling, has been used by Trump and Republicans in their 2024 campaigns.
“Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), any agency contemplating a “major Federal action” must analyze its “environmental effects.” However, in 2021, the Department of Homeland Security canceled 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,” U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, wrote.
He stated that stopping the construction of the border wall without assessing its environmental impact constituted a violation of this obligation. The court also highlighted testimony from two former high-ranking DHS officials, who indicated that the policy changes were directly linked to the rise in illegal immigration, significantly affecting Smith’s ranch.
Central to the case was the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a significant environmental law enacted in 1969 that requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impact of major actions before moving forward. The lawsuit argued that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) breached this obligation by failing to conduct any environmental review when it stopped border wall construction and terminated the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) in 2021. The plaintiffs claimed that these decisions constituted a “major federal action” under NEPA, and their lack of an environmental impact review rendered the actions unlawful.
The court concurred, determining that the Biden administration had indeed violated NEPA in its rush to overturn the border policies established by the Trump administration. In his opinion, U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden stated that DHS’s failure to perform the necessary environmental analysis was a clear breach of the law, and he recognized the tangible harm that Smith had suffered due to the policy reversals.
Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.