Key Takeaways
A nonprofit associated with the Lipan Apache community and two Indigenous worshippers are suing the federal government over border construction in the Big Bend region.
The plaintiffs argue that construction and surveying threaten sacred sites, restrict access to the Rio Grande, and interfere with religious ceremonies and the gathering of sacred plants.
The lawsuit invokes the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and American Indian Religious Freedom Act, raising questions about how religious freedom protections apply to Indigenous practices tied to specific lands.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has temporarily paused construction activity inside Big Bend National Park through at least August 31 while officials review the project.
Why Is an Indigenous Group Suing Over the Big Bend Border Project?
An Indigenous preservation group and Lipan Apache worshippers are suing the federal government over border construction in Texas' Big Bend region, arguing that the project threatens sacred sites and substantially burdens their religious practices.
The lawsuit was filed August 14 by the People of La Junta for Preservation, two Indigenous worshippers of Lipan Apache lineage, and other plaintiffs. They are seeking to stop construction and surveying activity that they say could permanently alter places used for prayer, ceremonies, gathering sacred materials, and honoring ancestors.
Since the lawsuit was filed, the federal government has temporarily paused construction inside Big Bend National Park while U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Rodney Scott reviews the project. According to an August 24 court filing, that pause will remain in place through at least August 31.
What Is the Big Bend Religious Freedom Lawsuit About?
The People of La Junta for Preservation is a nonprofit dedicated to protecting Indigenous cultural and sacred sites in the Big Bend region. The organization is joined in the lawsuit by Christina Hernandez and Andrew Austin, both described as worshippers of Lipan Apache lineage, as well as the Far Flung Outdoor Center, a Terlingua-based river outfitter.
The plaintiffs are suing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), CBP, and several federal officials over border infrastructure planned for Big Bend National Park and surrounding areas of West Texas.
Their case goes beyond objections to the physical appearance of a border barrier. They argue that roads, excavation, vegetation clearing, surveillance equipment, barriers, and other construction could damage or make inaccessible places that are integral to Indigenous religious practice.
The lawsuit asks a federal court in San Antonio to stop certain work in Big Bend National Park and elsewhere in CBP's Big Bend Sector.
Why Do Lipan Apache Worshippers Say the Land Is Religiously Important?
For the Indigenous plaintiffs, the religious significance of Big Bend cannot simply be transferred to another location.
Hernandez, director of People of La Junta and a member of the state-recognized Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas, told the Texas Observer that members of her community use the Rio Grande for ceremonies and gather willow and cattail pollen along its banks.
Willow is used to construct sweat lodges, while water and plant materials gathered from the river play roles in ceremonies. Austin also participates in traditional song, dance, prayer, and other religious observances in the region, according to the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs say the act of gathering those materials from that particular landscape is itself spiritually significant. In their religious understanding, the river and land are not merely resources or settings for worship. They are treated as living relatives connected to their ancestors and religious traditions.
That connection also extends to burial grounds and archaeological sites. People of La Junta owns land along the Rio Grande in Redford that includes part of the Polvo archaeological site, where remains of centuries-old Indigenous settlements and a Spanish mission have been documented.
Which Religious Freedom Laws Does the Lawsuit Cite?
One of the central arguments involves the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA.
Under RFRA, the federal government generally cannot substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless it can show that doing so serves a compelling governmental interest and uses the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
The plaintiffs argue that damaging sacred sites or preventing worshippers from reaching the land, river, plants, and burial grounds used in their religious practices would constitute such a burden.
The lawsuit also invokes theAmerican Indian Religious Freedom Act, a 1978 law establishing federal policy to protect and preserve traditional Native American religious practices, including access to sacred sites, use of sacred objects, and participation in traditional ceremonies.
That makes the religious freedom component of the lawsuit particularly notable. Many modern religious liberty disputes focus on issues such as employment, education, health care, or religious expression. This case asks how those protections apply when religious exercise depends on access to a specific landscape.
Has Border Construction in Big Bend Stopped?
For now, construction activity inside Big Bend National Park has been paused, but the project has not been permanently canceled.
CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott announced the pause on August 17 following public opposition to work underway in the park. An August 24 court filing from the federal government said the pause will last through at least August 31 while Scott reviews the project and speaks with local stakeholders.
Before the pause, heavy equipment had already cleared vegetation and created access routes in parts of the park. Satellite imagery analyzed by Bellingcat showed more than five miles of new road activity near the Rio Grande, including areas around Mariscal Canyon and Santa Elena Canyon.
The federal government characterizes much of that activity as pre-construction work used for surveying and engineering. In its court filing, DHS argued that the plaintiffs' claims of future harm are speculative because final designs inside the park are still under review.
Is the Government Building a 30-Foot Border Wall Through Big Bend National Park?
CBP says no.
Scott has publicly rejected reports that the government intends to construct a 30-foot pedestrian wall or stadium-style lighting through Big Bend National Park.
Instead, CBP says current plans for the park involve a new access road, improvements to existing roads, detection technology, and vehicle barriers in selected locations.
The distinction has contributed to confusion over what exactly constitutes a "border wall" in Big Bend.
A $1.7 billion federal contract is officially described as being for border wall work in the Big Bend region. CBP later said that contract covers 17 miles of vehicle barriers and patrol roads along with approximately 205 miles of what the agency calls "system attributes," including roads and surveillance technology.
Whatever terminology is used, opponents argue that roads, excavation, barriers, and surveillance infrastructure can still permanently alter land they consider sacred.
Why Is the Big Bend Project Controversial Beyond Religious Freedom?
The religious freedom lawsuit is one part of a much broader fight over border infrastructure in Big Bend.
Local residents, environmental groups, tourism businesses, sheriffs, and elected officials from both parties have questioned the scale and necessity of construction in the region. Big Bend is the largest Border Patrol sector geographically, but it has historically recorded the fewest migrant encounters of any sector along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The federal government maintains that new infrastructure is needed to prevent illegal crossings and drug trafficking and to give agents better access to remote stretches of the border. CBP says it has procedures designed to minimize environmental damage and preserve public access where possible.
Opponents have raised environmental, archaeological, economic, property-rights, and religious objections. Other lawsuits have challenged separate portions of the Big Bend border project, including plans that critics say could affect flood protection and environmentally sensitive areas.
Why Does the Big Bend Lawsuit Matter for Religious Freedom?
The dispute poses an unusual religious liberty question: What happens when practicing a religion depends on access to a specific piece of land?
A church congregation can often worship in another building. A religious object can sometimes be moved. But for traditions in which a particular river, burial ground, plant, or landscape has spiritual significance, relocation may fundamentally change the religious practice itself.
That is essentially what the Lipan Apache plaintiffs are asking the court to recognize.
The government, meanwhile, argues that border security serves an important public interest and disputes the plaintiffs' claims about the extent and immediacy of the potential harm.
That leaves the court to consider competing interests that frequently arise in religious freedom cases, but in a relatively uncommon setting. Instead of asking whether believers should receive an exemption from a rule, this case asks whether the government can physically alter the land on which religious practices depend.
What Happens Next in the Big Bend Lawsuit?
As of August 26, 2026, the lawsuit remains ongoing, and construction inside Big Bend National Park is paused through at least August 31. The pause itself does not resolve the case, nor does it guarantee that construction will not resume.
CBP is reviewing its plans for the national park, while the plaintiffs continue to seek court intervention to prevent what they argue could be irreversible damage to sacred and historic sites.
Whether the court ultimately accepts their religious freedom argument could have implications beyond Big Bend. The case may help clarify how federal religious liberty protections apply when worship, sacred places, ancestral history, and the physical landscape are inseparable.
