Vice President Kamala Harris was tasked with leading the Biden-Harris administration's border and immigration policies and has also played a leading role in its climate-related and environmental policies.

A federal judge just ruled that Harris has essentially failed on both fronts, in that the Biden-Harris administration neglected to conduct required environmental impact studies of its hasty reversals of Trump administration border and immigration policies, Fox News reported.

The judge ruled that a coalition of plaintiffs, including an Arizona rancher who lives along the southern border with Mexico, can proceed with its lawsuit that challenges the administration's border and immigration policies on environment-related procedural grounds.

Administration did not conduct required environmental impact studies

A group known as the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform, joined by other individual plaintiffs including Arizona rancher Steven Smith, asserted in a lawsuit that several Biden-Harris border and immigration-related policy decisions were illegal because they did not follow the proper procedures in implementing those policies.

Specifically, the plaintiffs pointed to the National Environmental Policy Act, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 4332, which, among other things, requires federal agencies to conduct studies and provide a "detailed statement" on the environmental impact of "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."

The plaintiffs, particularly rancher Smith, allege that the administration's policies -- including the termination of border wall construction and the reversal of Trump-era policies that limited migration, like the Migrant Protection Protocols, or "Remain in Mexico" policy -- were implemented without the required environmental assessments and, in fact, have had detrimental impacts on the environment.

Indeed, Smith asserted that the influx of illegal migrants across the border -- enticed by the Biden-Harris policies of lax enforcement -- has damaged his property, harmed his cattle, and diminished his enjoyment of the land, in that they have started fires, built campsites, stolen and polluted his water, and left trash and other debris everywhere, among other complaints.

The plaintiffs argued that had the Biden-Harris administration conducted the required environmental impact studies, they possibly would not have altered the policies because of the predictable detrimental impact on the environment.

Judge sides with ranchers

In a 34-page decision issued last week, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden ruled in favor of two Arizona ranchers and determined that they had, in fact, been directly and indirectly harmed by the Biden-Harris administration's failures to conduct the required NEPA environmental impact studies in advance of the decisions to halt border wall construction and end the "Remain in Mexico" policy.

"In sum, the Court finds that Smith suffered tangible harms that were caused by an influx of illegal immigrants," McFadden wrote, according to Newsweek. "The Court fully credits Smith's testimony in general, and his descriptions of these tangible harms in particular."

"The Court also finds that DHS's decisions to cancel all border wall construction and terminate MPP [Migrant Protection Protocols] substantially contributed to that influx in illegal immigration," the judge added.

"Presidential administrations enjoy significant discretion in the enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws and protection of our borders. But this latitude does not license violations of other laws," McFadden concluded. "Smith shows that the Biden Administration ignored this basic principle. This unlawful shortcut injured him in demonstrable and predictable ways. A preponderance of the evidence proves so, as the Court finds today."

A "remedy" for the harms caused will have to wait for another day

However, NEPA "does not guarantee the restoration of a prior status quo" and it is unclear what the proper "remedy" for the harms caused by the administration should be, so the judge set dates for the filing of briefs over the next few months to address that unresolved question.

It will be interesting to see if the eventual remedy is merely monetary compensation or if the federal government will be forced to reimplement the previously reversed policies unless or until the requisite environmental impact studies are completed.