TUCSON, Ariz. — A new federal court battle is unfolding in southern Arizona, where Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem asserts sweeping authority to build nearly 40 miles of border wall, despite claims from environmental groups that the project could wipe out the jaguar’s fragile U.S. population.
The legal fight hinges on a 1996 immigration law, later expanded in 2005, that allows the Department of Homeland Security to not only construct physical barriers along the border but also waive any legal requirements to speed construction. In new court filings, government attorney Alexander Yun defended the secretary’s use of that power, calling environmental objections unfounded.
“Such theories have no credible basis in constitutional jurisprudence,” Yun told U.S. District Court Judge Angela Martinez. “And every court to hear such challenges has unambiguously upheld the constitutionality of the statute.”
Environmental groups, including the Arizona Center for Biological Diversity and CATalyst, argue the expanded waiver provision amounts to unchecked power. Attorney Jean Su, representing the groups, said the law now grants “unbridled — and unconstitutional — delegation of legislative authority.”
Their lawsuit highlights the San Rafael Valley, a corridor linking imperiled jaguars and ocelots in Arizona to populations in Sonora, Mexico. Conservationists say the wall plan — which includes 27 miles of 30-foot steel bollards to replace older, more permeable vehicle barriers — would sever critical wildlife pathways.
“The San Rafael Valley is a critical lifeline, connecting imperiled jaguars and ocelots to vital breeding populations in Sonora,” the lawsuit states. Su warned the impact would go far beyond jaguars: “The Arizona Border Wall Project would essentially be the death knell for jaguars in the United States, eliminating over 53 years-worth of jaguar conservation efforts.”
She added that the barriers would also block black bears, mountain lions, pronghorn, and other species dependent on transboundary migration for food, shelter, and mates.
Yun, in his response, focused squarely on statutory authority rather than environmental risks. He argued Congress made clear choices in 1996 and 2005, instructing the Homeland Security secretary to prioritize border security over competing concerns.
“By placing no limitations on the kinds of laws that may be waived, Congress prioritized border security over any other values, such as environmental concerns,” Yun wrote.
He further argued that Congress still imposed boundaries on Noem’s authority — namely that waivers apply only near the U.S. border and only when “necessary to ensure expeditious construction.”
Experience construction's cutting edge at CO Summit Phoenix – where desert builders meet breakthrough technology and partnerships. | Book your booth
Yun said Noem selected the contested Arizona sites because of high levels of illegal activity. “The secretary chose these sections because she determined that the Tucson Sector is an area of high illegal entry, with over 463,000 illegal aliens and thousands of pounds of illegal drugs apprehended in 2024,” he told the court.
The plans cover two major stretches of land: a five-mile section east of Nogales and a 33-mile corridor between the Patagonia Mountains and Coronado National Memorial. Environmentalists warn the construction — including stadium lighting, concrete foundations, and water use for dust suppression — would disrupt rivers, fragment habitats, and erase decades of conservation work.
“It would wipe out agency, organizational and tribal efforts, leaving an irreplaceable void in the landscape that would be continuously felt by the communities who have lived beside them,” Su told the court.
Notably, Yun’s 24-page filing made no reference to jaguars or other species, underscoring that the government is framing the case as one strictly about law and national security, not ecology.
The court has yet to set a hearing date. Under the statute, legal challenges must be filed within 60 days and can only advance to the U.S. Supreme Court after a trial ruling, leaving conservationists with limited legal avenues.
At stake is more than just the fate of Arizona’s jaguars. The case could set precedent for how far executive authority extends when balancing border security against environmental protection — a debate that has fueled controversy along the U.S.-Mexico border for nearly three decades.
Originally reported by Howard Fischer, Capitol media Services in Arizona Capitol Times.
.webp)
