Federal magistrate judge dismisses trespassing charges against 98 arrested in new military zone
Dozens of immigrants who illegally crossed into the U.S. via a newly established military-controlled zone along the U.S.-Mexico border have had their trespassing charges dismissed.
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth began filing the dismissals late on Wednesday, ruling the immigrants did not know they were entering the military zone – known as the New Mexico National Defense Area (NMNDA) – and therefore could not be charged, according to court documents.
Wormuth ruled that the federal government failed to demonstrate probable cause that the immigrants knew they were entering the zone.
The government had argued in a criminal complaint that the military had posted signs in the zones stating in both English and Spanish that it was a restricted area and that unauthorized entry is prohibited.
Despite signs indicating restricted access, the judge noted that the challenging terrain made it unlikely that the defendants saw the warnings.
The decision marks a setback for the Trump administration's border crackdown as the trespassing charges were central to enforcing the NMNDA.
READ THE ORDER – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:
The NMNDA was established in April and spans approximately 180 miles along the southern New Mexico border. U.S. Army personnel now patrol the area and are authorized to detain unauthorized entrants.
"Beyond the reference to signage, the United States provides no facts from which one could reasonably conclude that the Defendant knew he was entering the NMNDA (New Mexico National Defense Area)," wrote Wormuth in a 16-page ruling. Wormuth has served as a U.S. magistrate judge since 2009. Magistrate judges are appointed by district court judges and not by the president.
The judge dismissed two charges faced by the 98 arrested immigrants: violation of a security regulation and entering military property for an unlawful purpose, both misdemeanors. A third misdemeanor charge of entering the U.S. illegally remains.
Up to May 9, Ellison's office reported charging 339 migrants for entering the New Mexico military area.
Last month, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum visited New Mexico to announce that the Army was taking control of the federal land as part of the Trump administration's efforts to curb illegal immigration and trafficking.
The 109,651 acres of federal land was transferred to the Army for three years, subject to valid existing rights.
The switch in jurisdiction allows the government to protect sensitive natural and cultural resources in the region, while helping the Army support U.S. Border Patrol operations in securing the border and preventing illegal immigration, according to the Department of the Interior.
In March, the Defense Department authorized the military to patrol the southern border to provide "enhanced detection and monitoring" to support U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Fox News Digital emailed and called a Department of Justice attorney involved in the case for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
16 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Faces New Lawsuit Over Migrants Sent to Salvadoran Prison
The Trump administration is facing a new legal challenge to its arrangement with El Salvador to send migrants — and potentially US citizens — to a mega-prison infamous for its dangerous and unsanitary conditions. The case, filed in federal court in Washington, is the first to directly target the State Department's agreement to pay millions of dollars to house people arrested in the United States in El Salvador's prison system, including the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, known as CECOT.
Washington Post
18 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump says latest travel ban ‘can't come soon enough'
Politics Trump says latest travel ban 'can't come soon enough' June 5, 2025 | 5:20 PM GMT President Donald Trump's new restrictions on the entry of travelers to the U.S. from more than a dozen countries does not include Egypt. In an earlier video announcing the ban, Trump referred to the recent attack that injured a dozen demonstrators in Boulder, Colo. Authorities said the attack was done by an Egyptian immigrant who arrived on a visa.
Business Wire
27 minutes ago
- Business Wire
Lieff Cabraser & Farella Braun + Martel Announce That University of California Researchers Have Filed a Class Action Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration for the Illegal and Unconstitutional Termination of Critical Research Grants
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Lieff Cabraser & Farella Braun + Martel Announce that a group of six University of California faculty and other researchers have filed a class action in federal court against the Trump Administration on behalf of all UC researchers whose previously approved agency grants were terminated pursuant to Executive Orders or other directives of President Trump, as implemented through the Department of Government Efficiency ('DOGE'). University of California Researchers File Class Action Suit Against Trump Administration for Illegal & Unconstitutional Termination of Critical Research Grants Plaintiffs seek a declaration that these grant terminations violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, and the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, as well as statutes that govern agencies' missions and grantmaking and the Administrative Procedure Act. As detailed in the Complaint, these abrupt cancellations of already awarded grants 'ignored or contradicted the purposes for which Congress created the granting agencies and appropriated funds, and dispensed with the regular procedures and due process afforded grantees under the Administrative Procedure Act, in implementing the Trump Administration's political 'cost-cutting' agenda and ideological purity campaign.' According to UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional law scholar and co-counsel on the case, 'President Trump and DOGE have arbitrarily cut off funding to researchers throughout the University of California system in clear violation of the Constitution and federal laws. There has not been a semblance of due process or compliance with the procedures required by federal statutes and regulations. This has caused great harm to a large number of faculty and other researchers and the UC research enterprise as a whole, with potentially grave consequences to everyone in society who benefits from the research in a myriad of disciplines." As described by Plaintiff Dr. Neeta Thakur, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at UCSF, 'The EPA has abruptly terminated a three-year grant that was supporting research on how wildfire smoke affects the lungs, heart, and brain of all Californians. My colleagues and I at UCSF and UC Berkeley have worked on this important project for two years, and its sudden end — communicated through a simple form letter — puts our progress in danger. This decision disrupts our ongoing work with community-based organizations and stops us from generating life-saving information designed to improve public health and protect the well-being of all Californians, especially those living in at-risk communities.' Plaintiff Jedda Foreman, the Director of the Center for Environmental Learning at the Lawrence Hall of Science at UC Berkeley, explains, 'My team and I at the Lawrence Hall of Science earned NSF grants to make science education more accessible to all learners. Instilling a love of science is critical to envisioning and creating a better future for us all. In one day, we lost two projects, and nearly 75% of our funding, because of terminations by NSF. A week later, NSF terminated yet another one of our projects. These terminations haven't just affected our team, but also our longtime community partners and thousands of students across the United States.' These are just two of hundreds of examples of the damage wrought by the Trump Administration's illegal and unconstitutional terminations. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, seeks a return to the pre-Trump Administration process of orderly grantmaking that aligns with congressionally authorized purposes, and affords due process to grant-funded researchers. Plaintiffs seek, for themselves and the class of UC researchers who have suffered unlawful grant terminations, an injunction restoring their lost funding, providing them sufficient time to complete the work for which their grants were originally approved, and preventing further illegal grant terminations. Plaintiffs will be filing a motion for a temporary restraining order on June 5, 2025. The case, No. 3:25-cv-4737, is assigned to the Honorable Rita F. Lin. Background on the Lawsuit Each year, researchers in the UC system receive hundreds of millions of dollars in grants from the full spectrum of federal agencies, ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency, to the National Science Foundation, to the National Institutes of Health. These grants fund the production of new knowledge and fuel the development of discoveries that greatly benefit society at large. The grants have also been key to the innovation that has consistently earned the UC system pride of place among research institutions, including first place in the list of universities with the most utility patents. They have also made the UC Berkeley campus the number one ranked public research in institution in the world for nine of the past ten years. Before President Trump took office, federal grantmaking proceeded under the authority of Congress, which appropriated taxpayer funds for specific public purposes. For decades, agencies carried out these statutory directives and observed due process in making, renewing, and (only seldom) terminating grants. They each adhered to their own grant regulations and followed Administrative Procedure Act processes when modifying such regulations. On the rare occasions when agencies terminated grants, they did so pursuant to predictable, regularized processes and terminated grants only for reasons stated in the regulations. All of this changed abruptly on January 20, 2025 (Inauguration Day). After January 20, 2025, Defendants Donald J. Trump and DOGE, through a flurry of Executive Orders and other directives, commanded the Federal Agency Defendants to terminate scores of previously awarded research grants. As the Complaint notes, the 'abrupt, wholesale, and unilateral termination of these grants has violated the Constitution's bedrock principle of separation of powers and its guarantees of freedom of speech and due process; flouted the Impoundment Control Act limits on the Executive's ability to withhold or redirect congressionally appropriated money; ignored statutory requirements that agencies fulfill their substantive missions and fund congressionally specified activities; contravened agency-specific grant-making regulations that cannot by law be revised on an abrupt, unexplained, chaotic basis; and violated the Administrative Procedure Act through this arbitrary, capricious, and ultra vires conduct.' As further detailed in the Complaint, grounds the agencies have offered for such terminations were spurious. In some cases, agency correspondence to grantees asserted that grant termination would reduce public costs and promote government efficiency, although no evidence was provided to support this claim. In other cases, agency communications made it clear that grants were being terminated to further Defendant Trump's political objectives, which included the elimination of research on climate, environmental justice, 'gender ideology,' and 'DEI.' These grant terminations are occurring not because the grant-funded research departed from its originally approved purpose, but because that purpose now offends the political agenda and ideological requirements of the Trump Administration. In terminating these grants, the agencies have violated the Constitution, numerous federal statutes, and their own regulations. Plaintiff UC researchers have suffered concrete financial, professional, and other harms from Defendants' unilateral termination of grants for projects to which they have already dedicated time and effort; for research upon which they have staked careers and reputations; and for work with research teams through which they endeavored to train a next generation. These terminations have impaired and will impair the public-serving research mission of the UC system and the concern for public welfare that undergirds it. Named Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class will continue to suffer such harms on an ongoing basis, and will experience increasing and irreparable harm absent the court declaration and injunction they seek through this lawsuit.
