Migrant acquitted in first trial over US border military zones
By Andrew Hay
(Reuters) -A federal jury in Texas on Thursday acquitted the first migrant tried for entering one of the new military zones on the U.S.-Mexico border, marking a legal challenge to the Trump administration plan to raise penalties for illegal crossings.
The trial of the 21-year-old Peruvian woman was a test of whether the federal government could levy extra charges against migrants who cross the border unlawfully into areas in Texas and New Mexico designated as restricted military areas.
Adely Vanessa De La Cruz-Alvarez faced two charges for entering a Texas military zone and a charge for illegal entry into the United States after her May 12 arrest near Tornillo, about 30 miles east of El Paso, according to court documents.
An El Paso jury on Thursday found the migrant guilty of illegal entry to the United States but not guilty of unlawfully entering military property.
The judge in the case on Wednesday acquitted De La Cruz-Alvarez of a trespassing charge, ruling federal prosecutors produced no evidence the migrant saw any signs warning her that she was entering a Department of Defense restricted area.
"There was zero testimony that Ms. De La Cruz (1) ever saw any such signage, (2) knew that the area was designated as any kind of a military zone, (3) had any intention, willfully or otherwise, to enter upon a military zone," Federal Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez wrote in her ruling.
Federal prosecutors argued they did not need to prove De La Cruz knew she was trespassing on military land to charge her for the act, only that she knew she was illegally entering the United States.
Alvarez's lawyer Veronica Teresa Lerma did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The El Paso trial comes after federal magistrate judges in New Mexico and Texas dismissed trespassing charges against dozens of migrants on grounds they did not know they were on military land due to inadequate signage.
The National Defense Areas were set up along 240 miles of the border in New Mexico and Texas starting in April. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said migrants caught in them could face combined penalties of up to ten years' imprisonment.
(Reporting By Andrew Hay; editing by Diane Craft)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
USDA redaction of trade analysis causes concern about report integrity
By Julie Ingwersen and Leah Douglas CHICAGO/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Analysts voiced concerns this week about the integrity of U.S. Department of Agriculture reports after the agency delayed a report and excluded findings that point to tariffs as a reason for a forecasted increase in the agricultural trade deficit, according to Reuters interviews with four analysts. The administration of President Donald Trump has pledged to shrink the farm trade deficit and has said tariffs will strengthen the farm economy, but farm groups have been critical of the approach. The agency's delay of a quarterly agricultural trade report and exclusion of its typical explanatory text were concerning because the moves raised questions about the objectivity of the data, two analysts said. "The trade is uneasy about USDA statistics now," said Charlie Sernatinger, head of grains with Marex, a brokerage and financial services company. A USDA spokesperson said the report was delayed by an internal review. "The report was hung up in internal clearance process and was not finalized in time for its typical deadline. Given this report is not statutory as with many other reports USDA does, the department is undergoing a review of all of its non-statutory reports, including this one, to determine next steps," the spokesperson said. The quarterly trade outlook report jointly published by the USDA's Economic Research Service and Foreign Agricultural Service was scheduled to be released on May 29. Shortly before it was set to publish, its authors were told to stop its release, according to a source familiar with the situation. The authors were then questioned by leaders at the ERS, FAS and USDA Office of the Chief Economist about the report's attribution of the growing agriculture trade deficit to tariffs and sentiments like "Buy Canadian" that have reduced demand for U.S. goods, the source said. In the delayed report released on Monday, the USDA raised its forecast of the U.S. agriculture trade deficit for fiscal-year 2025 to $49.5 billion, from the $49 billion it previously forecast in February. The version of the report published on Monday contains correct and unaltered data, the source said, but excludes explanatory text typically contained in the forecasts. The report delay and redaction were first reported by Politico. Such trade reports would typically be reviewed by communications and policy staff, but the removal of the explanatory text was highly unusual, according to a second source familiar with the report publication process. Two other analysts said they were confident in the USDA data for now, but expressed concern about how Trump's disruption of the federal government could affect future reports. "Departures of key personnel limit the ability of agencies to collect and analyze information," said Patrick Westhoff, director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri. The USDA has lost about 27% of ERS employees and 14% of FAS employees to terminations or voluntary incentives to leave the agency as the Trump administration works to reduce the size and cost of the federal government, according to Reuters reporting. The U.S. had an agricultural trade surplus for decades but in recent years, imports of high-value goods like alcohol, fruits and vegetables have driven a growing deficit, according to USDA data. Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says China's Xi agreed to restart flow of rare earth minerals
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday that Chinese President Xi Jinping had agreed to restart the flow of rare earth minerals and magnets to the United States. Asked directly by a reporter aboard Air Force One whether Xi had agreed to do so, Trump replied: "Yes, he did." He added: "We're very far advanced on the China deal."
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court rejects Republican election-rule challenge in Pennsylvania
By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court passed up a chance to give politicians more power over how federal elections are conducted, declining on Friday to hear a Republican challenge to a Pennsylvania judicial decision requiring the counting of provisional ballots cast by voters who make mistakes on their mail-in ballots. The justices turned away an appeal by the Republican National Committee and Republican Party of Pennsylvania of a decision by Pennsylvania's top court on provisional ballots that the plaintiffs said ran afoul of legislature-crafted voting rules, violating the U.S. Constitution's election-related provisions. The dispute returned to the Supreme Court after the justices, on the eve of the November 2024 presidential election, rejected the emergency bid by the Republicans to block tallying the provisional ballots. The Republicans objected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's October ruling in favor of two Butler County voters who sought to have their provisional ballots counted after their mail-in ballots were rejected during that state's 2024 presidential primary election for lacking secrecy envelopes. Election rules in states like Pennsylvania that often play a pivotal role in determining the outcome of U.S. presidential elections are a particularly sensitive issue. Republican President Donald Trump prevailed in Pennsylvania last November, but lost the state in 2020 to his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, who won the presidency that year. The case follows a major 2023 Supreme Court ruling that allows the justices to second-guess state courts if they undermine the power that the Constitution gives state legislatures to craft election rules. That 6-3 ruling, which upheld a North Carolina state court's decision that invalidated a Republican-drawn congressional map as unlawfully disadvantaging Democrats, also rejected a more extreme theory advanced by many Republicans and conservatives that would have removed any role of state courts and state constitutions in regulating federal elections. The ruling, however, stopped short of announcing a legal test for determining when state courts have ventured too far in "arrogating to themselves" a legislature's power. In the Pennsylvania case, Republicans asked the Supreme Court to answer that question, contending that the state supreme court's ruling violated the Constitution's elections provisions, including that the "times, places and manner" of federal elections "shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." Provisional ballots generally protect voters from being excluded from the voting process if their eligibility is uncertain on Election Day. The vote is counted once officials confirm eligibility. Republicans intervened to defend Butler County's decision not to count the ballots from these voters, saying Pennsylvania's election law does not allow provisional ballots to be counted if a mail-in ballot was received on time by a county board of elections. Democrats intervened on the side of the voters, contending that if a mail-in ballot is defective and cannot be counted, that person has not yet voted and a provisional ballot must be counted. A divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court last October sided with the voters, saying that provisional ballots prevent double voting while protecting voters' right to have one vote counted. Friday's action by the court was unexpected. The court had planned to release it on Monday along with its other regularly scheduled orders, but a software glitch on Friday prematurely sent email notifications concerning the court's decision in the case. "As a result, the court is issuing that order list now," said court spokesperson Patricia McCabe. It is not the first time the court has inadvertently disclosed action in sensitive cases. Last year, an apparent draft of a ruling in a case involving emergency abortion access in Idaho was briefly uploaded to the court's website before being taken down. That disclosure represented an embarrassment for the top U.S. judicial body, coming two years after the draft of a blockbuster ruling rolling back abortion rights was leaked in advance.
