Federal magistrate judge dismisses trespassing charges against 98 arrested in new military zone
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.
Us Military Stationed At The Border In New Mexico National Defense Area Can Detain Illegal Migrants
Despite signs indicating restricted access, the judge noted that the challenging terrain made it unlikely that the defendants saw the warnings.
Read On The Fox News App
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.
Trump Orders Military To Take Control Of Federal Land At Southern Border
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.
Fox News' Louis Casiano and Reuters contributed to this report. Original article source: Federal magistrate judge dismisses trespassing charges against 98 arrested in new military zone
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
Mexico, under pressure from Trump, sends 26 cartel members to US
MEXICO CITY, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Mexico sent more than two dozen suspected cartel members to the U.S. on Tuesday, amid rising pressure from President Donald Trump on Mexico to dismantle the country's powerful drug organizations. Authorities shipped 26 prisoners wanted in the U.S. for ties to drug-trafficking groups, Mexico's attorney general's office and security ministry said in a joint statement. Mexico said the U.S. Department of Justice had requested their extradition and that it would not seek the death penalty for the accused cartel members. The transfer is the second of its kind this year. In February, Mexican authorities sent 29 alleged cartel leaders to the U.S., sparking a debate about the political and legal grounds for such a move. More: State Department updates Mexico travel advisory for Americans That Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum permitted yet another large-scale extradition of Mexican nationals underscores the balancing act she faces as she seeks to appease Trump while also avoiding unilateral U.S. military action in Mexico. In a statement, the U.S. Embassy said among those extradited were key figures in the Jalisco New Generation Cartel and the Sinaloa Cartel, which are Mexico's two dominant organized crime groups. 'This transfer is yet another example of what is possible when two governments unite against violence and impunity," U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ronald Johnson said in a statement. "These fugitives will now face justice in American courts, and the citizens of both our nations will be safer.' More: Mexican President rules out Trump's reported military plan against Mexico's drug cartels Trump has tied tariffs on Mexico to the deadly fentanyl trade, claiming the country hasn't tackled drug cartels aggressively enough. Last week, he directed the Pentagon to prepare operations against Mexican drug gangs that have been designated global terrorist organizations. Sheinbaum has said the U.S. and Mexico are nearing a security agreement to expand cooperation in the fight against cartels. But she has flatly rejected suggestions by the Trump administration that it could carry out unilateral military operations in Mexico. (Additional reporting by Mrinmay Dey in Bengaluru; Editing by Chris Reese, Cassandra Garrison and Lincoln Feast.)
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
The key to success at Trump-Putin Alaska summit on Ukraine? Low expectations.
Russia's progress has limited the risk of escalation and increased Moscow's willingness to continue fighting. Trump keeps trying to find a way to end the war, but time is not on Ukraine's side. The war in Ukraine is stuck, and has been stuck for years. Despite the media frenzy over the upcoming U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska, there is little reason to expect a breakthrough, barring a dramatic change in the U.S., Russian or Ukrainian positions. When President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet on Friday, Aug. 15, observers should keep expectations low. Any progress would be welcome. Since February 2022, the conflict has been a slow, grinding war of attrition in which Russia has gradually seized more and more Ukrainian territory. Russia's military progress dampened its incentives to escalate the conflict, an early source of U.S. concern. For example, in the fall of 2022, the high-water mark for Ukraine on the battlefield, U.S. intelligence estimated that there was a 50% chance Russia would reach for nuclear weapons if its forces in southern Ukraine were facing collapse. Were Russia losing today, the risks for Americans would be higher. Putin's will vs. Trump's way While Russia's progress has limited the risk of escalation, it has also increased Moscow's willingness to continue fighting. Since beginning his second term, Trump has tried to find a way to end the war, but the Kremlin has not shown much willingness to moderate its demands. Putin has insisted on Ukraine renouncing aspirations to join NATO or allow NATO forces on its territory; conceding Russian sovereignty over the four provinces it annexed in 2022; the demilitarization of Ukraine; and the 'denazification' of the country, by which it means dramatic reforms to how it governs itself domestically. Putin has also rejected a temporary ceasefire that doesn't engage on these issues. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. The debate over the what to do next often obscures more than it reveals. One hears reference to Ukrainian victory or Russian defeat without defining what those terms mean or what their implications would be. Does Ukrainian victory or Russian defeat mean Kyiv regaining all territory inside its internationally recognized borders? That isn't going to happen. Could Ukraine losing territory but keeping its sovereignty and military ‒ without NATO membership ‒ be portrayed as success? Many security scholars believe that such armed neutrality is the best that can be achieved for Ukraine. Opinion: I was the US ambassador to Ukraine. Here's why I resigned. Don't forget Zelenskyy's intransigence This is where Ukraine's intransigence comes in. Even though Ukrainian public support for continuing the war has cratered, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is using the Ukrainian Constitution as a firewall against concessions. As amended in 2019, it both prohibits the Ukrainian government from ceding any territory and somewhat clumsily commits it to pursue membership in NATO. In rejecting Trump's suggestion that there be land swaps as part of a settlement, Zelenskyy pointed at the constitution's provision against giving up territory, arguing that 'no one will step back from this, nor will anyone be able to.' The Ukrainian president's willingness and ability to end the war probably has less to do with high-minded constitutional principles and more to do with his own political survival. At this point, the war has produced total destruction in Ukraine, the evisceration of its territory, and all the ruinous human and economic costs of the war ‒ but without any U.S. security guarantees. Zelenskyy knows this would be a disastrous legacy, so he has a powerful incentive to obtain something he can portray as a benefit of the war. Gen. Wesley Clark: Trump needs to push Putin hard to end war in Ukraine – now | Opinion The question is whether Kyiv's position on the battlefield can sustain Zelenskyy's intransigence on the political issues, with or without more U.S. support. There are worrying signs that it cannot. Ukraine faces an array of manpower issues along the 600-mile front. Key towns seem to be in jeopardy. Time is not on Ukraine's side. As always, the Europeans are doing everything in their power to keep the United States at the center of the war in Ukraine ‒ and as the central provider of regional security. They called a virtual meeting with Zelenskyy and Trump two days before the Putin summit, and proposed a plan for Ukraine that would involve potential NATO membership in exchange for Kyiv conceding that it lost territory. After the meeting on Aug. 13, French President Emmanuel Macron and European Council President António Costa indicated Trump committed that the United States would participate in security guarantees for Ukraine. However, Trump has previously resisted European pleas for U.S. security guarantees to Ukraine, and make no mistake: That is just what NATO membership would be. With two consecutive U.S. administrations revealing that Washington does not perceive an interest in Ukraine worth fighting Russia over, such a commitment would be inherently incredible. In the coming days, avoiding any traps laid by the Europeans, the Ukrainians or congressional hawks is essential. From a U.S. perspective, patience and low expectations are the right course for talks with Russia. Above all, Trump must avoid backing into a reboot of the Biden administration's Ukraine policy, which involved an endless flow of weapons and hoping for a miracle. America's resources for and interests in the war in Ukraine are limited. Trump's policy should reflect that. Justin Logan (@justintlogan) is director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
NBC News
27 minutes ago
- NBC News
The CEO in chief: How Trump is getting what he wants from big business
For years, conservative groups and corporate leaders argued that the U.S. government would be better if it were run like a business. For President Donald Trump, who has controlled his own businesses for decades, that looks like taking an increasingly active role in individual corporations' affairs, from manufacturing to media to tech firms. And corporations are meeting the demands of a president who is more freely exerting his powers than he did the last time he was in office. At Trump's urging, Coca-Cola said it would produce a version of its namesake soda with U.S.-grown cane sugar. Paramount paid millions to settle allegations Trump levied against CBS' venerated '60 Minutes.' Two major semiconductor makers agreed to give the government a cut of their sales in China. The CEO of Intel met with Trump soon after the president called on him to resign. 'It's so much different than the first term,' said a Republican lobbyist whose firm represents several Fortune 500 companies, who spoke on condition of anonymity to speak candidly. 'He's just acting like a businessman. In his first term, I think he was trying to cosplay as a politician. He's more comfortable in his own skin, too. He can explain deals better.' Trump's role represents a break with past administrations that may have been unwilling or unable, politically, to bring similar pressure to bear on businesses. In the past, small-government conservatives once accused previous Democratic administrations of attempting to 'pick winners and losers' by trying to regulate industries. Trump today stands downstream of a bolder right-wing movement that calls for enhanced state intervention in corporate affairs. Trump has said the corporate concessions are intended to boost the U.S. economy. And the White House, in a statement, reinforced the idea that Trump's involved approach to private-sector dealings is a key part of his economic agenda. 'Cooled inflation, trillions in new investments, historic trade deals, and hundreds of billions in tariff revenue prove how President Trump's hands-on leadership is paving the way towards a new Golden Age for America,' White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.
