US judge dismisses case against migrants caught in new military zone
A United States judge in the southwestern state of New Mexico has dismissed trespassing charges against dozens of migrants apprehended in a military zone recently created under President Donald Trump.
The military zone is one of two so far that the Trump administration has created along the US-Mexico border, in order to deter undocumented migration into the country.
Entering a military zone can result in heightened criminal penalties. As many as 400 cases have since been filed in Las Cruces, New Mexico, alleging security violations and crimes like trespassing on restricted military property.
But starting late on Wednesday and continuing into Thursday, Chief US Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth began issuing dismissals at the request of the federal public defender's office in Las Cruces.
Wormuth ruled that the government had failed to demonstrate that the migrants knew they were entering a military zone.
'The criminal complaint fails to establish probable cause to believe the defendant knew he/she was entering' the military zone, Wormuth wrote in his orders dismissing charges.
The ruling is the latest legal setback for the Trump administration, as it seeks to impose stricter restrictions and penalties for undocumented immigration. But the president's broad use of executive power has drawn the ire of civil liberties groups, who argue that Trump is trampling constitutional safeguards.
Establishing new military zones has been part of Trump's strategy to reduce the flow of migration into the US.
Normally, the crime of 'improper entry by an alien' carries fines or a prison sentence of up to six months. But trespassing on a military zone comes with steeper penalties than a typical border crossing, and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has warned of a possible combined sentence of up to 10 years.
'You can be detained. You will be detained,' Hegseth warned migrants. 'You will be interdicted by US troops and border patrol working together.'
On April 18, the first military zone was unveiled, called the 'New Mexico National Defence Area'. It covered a stretch of about 274 kilometres — or 180 miles — along the border with Mexico, extending into land formerly held by the Department of the Interior.
Hegseth has said he would like to see more military zones set up along the border, and in early May, a second one was announced near El Paso, Texas. That strip was approximately 101km or 63 miles.
'Let me be clear: if you cross into the National Defense Area, you will be charged to the FULLEST extent of the law,' Hegseth wrote in a social media post.
Hegseth has previously stated that the military will continue to expand such zones until they have achieved '100 percent operational control' of the border.
Trump and his allies have frequently compared undocumented immigration to an 'invasion', and they have used that justification to invoke wartime laws like the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
In a court brief on behalf of the Trump administration, US Attorney Ryan Ellison argued that the new military zones were a vital bulwark for national security. He also rejected the idea that innocent people might be caught in those areas.
'The New Mexico National Defense Area is a crucial installation necessary to strengthen the authority of servicemembers to help secure our borders and safeguard the country,' Ellison said.
He noted that the government had put up 'restricted area' signs along the border. But the public defender's office in New Mexico argued that the government had not done enough to make it sufficiently clear to migrants in the area that they were entering a military zone.
In the US, the public defenders noted that trespassing requires that the migrants were aware of the restriction and acted 'in defiance of that regulation for some nefarious or bad purpose'.
Despite this week's dismissals, the migrants involved still face less severe charges of crossing the border illegally.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
43 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
The Netherlands to hold election on October 29 after government collapse
Dutch voters will head to the polls on October 29 in snap elections triggered by the dramatic collapse of the right-wing ruling coalition. Interior Minister Judith Uitermark announced the election date on Friday and said she would coordinate with municipalities to ensure a smooth voting process. Polls indicate a close race between the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), led by firebrand Geert Wilders, and the Labour/Green Left alliance, headed by former European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans. The centre-right VVD is trailing slightly behind, suggesting a tightly contested vote. The election was called after Wilders withdrew the PVV from the governing coalition in a dispute over immigration policy, pushing Prime Minister Dick Schoof and his cabinet to resign. Wilders had accused the government of dragging its feet on implementing what was intended to be the 'strictest-ever' immigration policy agreed by the four-way coalition. His decision to bring down the coalition prompted a backlash from partners, who accused him of acting out of self-interest. 'We had a right-wing majority and he's let it all go for the sake of his ego,' said Dilan Yesilgoz, leader of the VVD, which was a coalition member. 'It is irresponsible to take down the government at this point,' added Nicolien van Vroonhoven, leader of the NSC, another member of the collapsed alliance. Wilders's PVV stunned the political establishment in November 2023 by winning 37 of the 150 seats in parliament – emerging as the largest party by a strong margin. To govern, he assembled a four-party coalition with the VVD, the farmers' BBB party and the anticorruption NSC – but the price was to give up his ambition to become prime minister. Polling as of May 31 shows the PVV's support has dipped slightly – from 23 percent at the time of the 2023 election to 20 percent. The Labour/Green Left alliance follows closely with 19 percent and currently holds 25 seats in the lower house of parliament, second only to the PVV. The fragmented political landscape makes the outcome difficult to predict. In the meantime, Schoof has said he and his cabinet will continue in a caretaker role until a new government is formed.
Al Jazeera
16 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Harvard challenges Trump's efforts to block US entry for foreign students
Harvard University has broadened its existing lawsuit against the administration of President Donald Trump to fight a new action that attempts to stop its international students from entering the United States. On Thursday, the prestigious Ivy League school filed an amended complaint that alleges Trump's latest executive order violates the rights of the school and its students. Just one day earlier, Trump published an executive order claiming that 'it is necessary to restrict the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States solely or principally' to attend Harvard. He called Harvard's international students a 'class of aliens' whose arrival 'would be detrimental to the interests of the United States'. As a result, he said that he had the right under the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny them entry into the country. But in Thursday's court filing, Harvard dismissed that argument as the latest salvo in Trump's months-long campaign to harm the school. 'The President's actions thus are not undertaken to protect the 'interests of the United States,' but instead to pursue a government vendetta against Harvard,' the amended complaint says. It further alleged that, by issuing a new executive order to restrict students' entry, the Trump administration was attempting to circumvent an existing court order that blocked it from preventing Harvard's registration of foreign students. The complaint called upon US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Massachusetts to extend her temporary restraining order to include Trump's latest attack on Harvard's foreign students. 'Harvard's more than 7,000 F-1 and J-1 visa holders — and their dependents — have become pawns in the government's escalating campaign of retaliation,' Harvard wrote. Trump began his campaign against Harvard and other prominent schools earlier this year, after taking office for a second term as president. He blamed the universities for failing to take sterner action against the Palestinian solidarity protests that cropped up on their campuses in the wake of Israel's war on Gaza. The president called the demonstrations anti-Semitic and pledged to remove foreign students from the US who participated. Protest organisers, meanwhile, have argued that their aims were non-violent and that the actions of a few have been used to tar the movement overall. Critics have also accused Trump of using the protests as leverage to exert greater control over the country's universities, including private schools like Harvard and its fellow Ivy League school, Columbia University. In early March, Columbia — whose protest encampments were emulated at campuses across the country — saw $400m in federal funding stripped from its budget. The school later agreed to a list of demands issued by the Trump administration, including changes to its disciplinary policies and a review of its Middle East studies programme. Harvard University was also given a list of demands to comply with. But unlike Columbia, it refused, citing concerns that the restrictions would limit its academic freedom. The Trump administration's demands included ending Harvard's diversity programmes and allowing the federal government to audit its hiring and admissions processes to 'establish viewpoint diversity'. When those demands were not met, it proceeded to strip Harvard of its federal funding, to the tune of billions of dollars. Trump also threatened to revoke the school's tax-exempt status and barred it from receiving future federal research grants. But the attack on Harvard's international students has threatened to drive away tuition revenue as well. Nearly a quarter of Harvard's overall student body is from overseas. In May, the Department of Homeland Security announced it would revoke Harvard's access to a system, the Student Exchange Visitor Program, where it is required to log information about its foreign students. That would have forced currently enrolled Harvard students to transfer to another school, if they were in the country on a student visa. It would have also prevented Harvard from accepting any further international students. But Harvard sued the Trump administration, calling its actions 'retaliatory' and 'unlawful'. On May 23, Judge Burroughs granted Harvard's emergency petition for a restraining order to stop the restriction from taking effect. But since then, the Trump administration has continued to exert pressure on Harvard and other schools. Earlier this week, for example, the Trump administration wrote a letter to Columbia University's accreditor, accusing the New York City school of falling short of federal civil rights laws.
Al Jazeera
17 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump administration sanctions International Criminal Court judges
The administration of President Donald Trump has followed through with a threat to sanction officials on the International Criminal Court (ICC), naming four judges whom it accuses of taking 'illegitimate and baseless actions' against the United States and its allies. On Thursday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the sanctions in a sharply worded written statement. 'The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies,' Rubio wrote. 'This dangerous assertion and abuse of power infringes upon the sovereignty and national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel.' The four sanctioned judges include Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza of Peru, Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou of Benin and Beti Hohler of Slovenia. As a result of the sanctions, the judges will see their US-based property and assets blocked. US-based entities are also forbidden from engaging in transactions with them, including through the 'provision of funds, goods or services'. The ICC quickly issued a statement in response, saying it stood behind its judges and 'deplores' the Trump administration's decision. 'These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution which operates under the mandate from 125 States Parties from all corners of the globe,' the statement said. 'Targeting those working for accountability does nothing to help civilians trapped in conflict. It only emboldens those who believe they can act with impunity.' In a fact sheet, the State Department explained that Bossa and Ibanez Carranza were sanctioned for authorising an investigation into US troops in Afghanistan in 2020, during Trump's first term as president. Previously, the ICC had blocked a request to probe alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan, where the US had been leading a slow-grinding war from 2001 to 2021. But it reversed course the following year, granting a prosecutor's request to investigate US forces and members of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for war crimes in 'secret detention facilities' in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Afghanistan, the court noted, was a member of the Rome Statute, which includes the 125 countries where the ICC has jurisdiction. But the Trump administration at the time blasted the court's decision, calling the ICC a 'political institution masquerading as a legal body'. It has long argued that the US, which is not party to the Rome Statute, lies outside the ICC's jurisdiction. Another country that is not a member of the Rome Statute is Israel, which has used similar arguments to reject the ICC's power over its actions in Palestine. The second pair of judges named in Thursday's sanctions — Alapini Gansou and Hohler — were sanctioned for their actions against Israeli leaders, according to the US State Department. The US is Israel's oldest ally, having been the first to recognise the country in 1948. It has since offered Israel strong support, including for its ongoing war in Gaza, which has killed an estimated 54,607 Palestinians so far. Experts at the United Nations and human rights organisations have compared Israel's military campaign in Gaza to a genocide, as reports continue to emerge of alleged human rights abuses. In November 2024, those accusations spurred the ICC to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, who have both been accused of war crimes in Gaza, including intentional attacks on civilians. Alapini Gansou and Hohler reportedly took part in those proceedings. This is not the first time that the US has issued restrictions against an ICC official since Trump returned to office for a second term on January 20. Shortly after taking office, Trump issued a broad executive order threatening anyone who participates in ICC investigations with sanctions. Critics warned that such sweeping language could pervert the course of justice, for example by dissuading witnesses from coming forward with evidence. But Trump argued that the recent arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant necessitated such measures. He also claimed that the US and Israel were 'thriving democracies' that 'strictly adhere to the laws of war' and that the ICC's investigations threatened military members with 'harassment, abuse and possible arrest'. 'This malign conduct in turn threatens to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States and undermines the critical national security and foreign policy work of the United States Government and our allies, including Israel,' the executive order said. Under that order, the US sanctioned ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, who had petitioned the court for the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. That, in turn, slowed the investigation into Israel's actions in Gaza, and Khan later stepped away from his role amid allegations of sexual misconduct. But Trump has a history of opposing the ICC, stretching back to his first term. In 2019, for instance, Trump announced his administration would deny or yank visas for ICC officials involved in investigating US troops in Afghanistan. Then, in 2020, he sanctioned ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and a court official named Phakiso Mochochoko for their involvement in the investigation. Those actions were later overturned under President Joe Biden. Critics, however, warn that Trump's actions could have dire consequences over the long term for the ICC, which relies on its member countries to execute orders like arrest warrants. The court itself has called for an end to the threats.
