President Donald Trump lost another court case on Thursday regarding his crackdown on immigration.
One of the administration's ideas was to make part of New Mexico's border with Mexico a National Defense Area. It would allow the Justice Department to charge border crossings as a more severe crime.
As it stands, crossing the border without going through a port of entry is a misdemeanor on the first offense, the National Immigration Project explained. Crossing a National Defense Area would enable the government to charge migrants with felony trespass, one lawyer said.
As New Mexico civil litigator Owen Barcala remarked on Bluesky, the case "falls flat in front of the first judge to review it."
ALSO READ: MAGA's warlord scheme should shock the hell out of you
The major problem the judge had was that violators would have to know they were trespassing in the first place, but that might not be possible in a 180-mile zone, Barcala explained.
"Essentially, the court finds that the trespass charges—Violation of a Security Regulation, 50 U.S.C. § 797, and Entering Military Property for an Unlawful Purpose, 18 U.S.C. § 1382—require knowledge that they are entering the NDA," said Barcala. "Due to the size of the NDA and terrain, it's a difficult showing."
A "big caveat here" is that the judge "is dismissing these charges because the complaint itself fails to include sufficient facts on knowledge that they were entering the NDA," said Barcala, looking at the ruling. "Seems likely they'll try to include more specific allegations re: knowledge in the future that may get past dismissal."
He urged those curious about the case to read the lengthy footnote about the Justice Department's "historic filing" attacking the court. The government accused the judge of departing from "founding principles" because the judge questioned whether prosecutors had reasonable grounds in the first place.
"While the Court need not address every argument in the United States' Objection, given its remarkable tone and content, some points must be made," the judge wrote in the footnote. "Incredibly, this historionic filing is in response to the Court's order for the United States Attorney's Office to file a brief on a legal question about a criminal charge it had brought. Notably, the United States made no timely objection to the briefing order. In fact, United States filed its brief before apparently realizing days later that the mere request for briefing was 'an improper exercise of the Court's authority' and an 'extraordinary departure from ... foundational principles[ ]."
