A federal judge has extended a pause on border construction in the Big Bend region through Sept. 30, giving the court more time to consider a legal challenge over the project’s potential impact on Indigenous religious practices, tourism and protected federal land.

The pause had been scheduled to expire Sept. 15. The extension means construction and other earth-moving activity covered by the agreement will remain halted through the end of the month while the parties continue discussions.

The development follows an emergency hearing requested by the People of La Junta for Preservation, a nonprofit associated with members of the Lipan Apache community, and Far Flung Outdoor Center, a Terlingua-based outdoor recreation business. The groups filed their lawsuit Aug. 14 seeking to block border construction in Big Bend National Park.

State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, a San Antonio Democrat and one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, announced the latest extension on social media.

Gutierrez said there would be no “moving of earth or dirt of any kind” in the affected area during the extended pause.

He said the concerns of Lipan Apache members, Far Flung and other residents and businesses in the region need to be addressed before the project moves forward.

“It is my hope over the next 30 days, as the government goes out and talks to you and has conversations about what they’re going to do in Big Bend, that you participate,” Gutierrez said.

Gutierrez also echoed an argument that has become central to opposition to the project: Big Bend’s rugged terrain already serves as a formidable barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“We all want border security; we get it,” he said. “But we don’t want a wall where one already exists.”

Lawsuit challenges federal authority

The lawsuit raises broader questions about the federal government’s authority to bypass environmental and historic-preservation requirements for border construction inside Big Bend National Park.

The plaintiffs contend that Congress specifically set aside the land for a national park and that the Department of Homeland Security does not have unlimited authority to waive protections governing it.

They also argue that waivers issued by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin eliminate environmental, archaeological and historic-preservation reviews that would ordinarily take place before major construction.

According to the complaint, that creates the possibility that damage to archaeological sites, Indigenous cultural resources and other sensitive areas could occur before a court has an opportunity to decide whether the project is lawful.

The People of La Junta for Preservation, founded and led by Christina Hernandez, argues that construction “threatens archaeological resources, ancestral landscapes, traditional-use areas, and places of cultural and potentially religious significance to members of the organization.”

Far Flung, meanwhile, argues that construction could cause “imminent economic injury” by damaging the landscape that draws tourists and outdoor recreation customers to the Big Bend region.

The Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection are among the defendants in the case.

Opposition crosses party lines

The legal fight is one part of a broader backlash against proposed border barriers in Big Bend that has crossed traditional partisan lines.

Local residents, Indigenous groups, environmental advocates, business owners and elected officials from both parties have raised objections to construction in the region. A group of border county sheriffs has also questioned whether a continuous physical barrier makes sense given Big Bend’s remote and mountainous terrain.

Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham, a Republican, entered the dispute after accusing CBP and a federal contractor of entering and clearing state-managed land without authorization.

Gov. Greg Abbott has also said he received assurances from federal officials that a wall or fence would not be built through Big Bend National Park.

The disagreement has centered less on whether the border should be secured than on what kind of infrastructure makes sense in one of the most remote stretches of the Texas-Mexico border.

At a meeting of the No Big Bend Wall Coalition this week, regional director Yolanda Alvarado said the group was not opposing border enforcement itself.

“We are not asking the federal government to abandon border security,” Alvarado said. “We are asking for border security that makes sense for the border we live on.”

For now, the larger question of what ultimately will be built in Big Bend remains unresolved.

The Sept. 30 extension gives the plaintiffs, federal officials and the court additional time to sort through those questions while keeping construction on hold.

What happens after that date could determine not only the immediate future of the border project, but also how far the federal government can go in using its border-security authority inside one of the nation’s most heavily protected landscapes.