US Attorney challenges judge on military zone prosecutions
May 12—The U.S. Attorney in New Mexico is criticizing the chief U.S. Magistrate judge for seeking legal views about trespassing violations in the state's new military defense zone, urging the judge to "correct course" to avoid "further impropriety."
In a nine-page "objection" filed Sunday, U.S. Attorney Ryan Ellison sought to preempt a judicial opinion about the elements of criminally charging people illegally crossing into the U.S. with additional crimes of entering a restricted military zone and violating defense property security regulations.
The unusual court filing from the government comes just weeks after the Trump administration began the prosecution practice by designating a 60-foot-wide swath along New Mexico's southern border as military property called the New Mexico National Defense Area. The action was viewed as a way to legally use military troops for domestic law enforcement on American soil.
The 170-mile long stretch is part of the federal government's "broader efforts to protect and defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States in light of the 'National Emergency' caused by, among other things, unchecked unlawful mass migration," wrote Ellison, who was appointed April 19 by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.
With hundreds of defendants now facing such misdemeanor charges in Las Cruces federal court, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth on May 1 requested input from the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Public Defender's office citing the scarcity of caselaw relating to these offenses and "the unprecedented nature of prosecuting such offenses in this factual context."
The judge wanted to hear about the standards of proof needed to find defendants guilty in these kinds of cases, such as whether offenders would have had to know they were on military property or willfully intended to violate the no-trespassing edict.
Ellison's office on May 5 filed a 14-page defending the prosecution practice. But in his objection filed days later, Ellison called judge's solicitation of legal views an "extraordinary departure" from "foundational principles" because it wasn't spurred by any particular case.
The request was issued without prompting from any party, outside the context of any particular case, "absent any relation to an identified defendant, on a miscellaneous docket, and untethered to any contemplated or requested relief," Ellison wrote.
Moreover, the judge's request "was an improper exercise of the Court's authority," he contended. He urged Wormuth to avoid "further impropriety of issuing an advisory opinion purporting to provide views on abstract questions of law that have not yet been properly raised in any case by any party."
Amanda Skinner, of the federal public defender's office, contended in her May 8 response to Wormuth that the signage warning those stepping into the defense zone is inadequate, but the U.S. Attorney's office argued such notification wasn't required to prove someone violated the military-related laws. The fact that someone has intentionally entered the zone from Mexico through an area other than a designated port of entry and knows that conduct is unlawful is enough to find someone guilty of the military zone infractions, federal prosecutors maintain.
The 12 x 18-inch signs, which are posted on stakes inside the zone, are in English and Spanish, but no other languages. Skinner, who couldn't be reached for comment Monday, asked Wormuth to hear oral arguments on the issue.
Ellison wrote that it appeared the judge's "premature and inappropriate effort to decide questions before it" was apparently "designed to provide legal guidance to courts across all cases, present and future, across the district."
The New Mexico defense zone is a "crucial installation necessary to strengthen the authority of servicemembers to help secure our borders and safeguard the country. The Court should therefore be particularly reluctant to stray beyond the constitutional limits of 'judicial power' and unilaterally impose its legal views in cases implicating national sovereignty."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns
Advertisement Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on Second Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn't stand in the way of protecting American gun owners' hearing,' said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel. Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons. Advertisement 'Parents don't want silencers on their streets, police don't want silencers on their streets,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants. Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools. Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades. Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called 'beautiful.' 'I'm glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill,' said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year. Advertisement If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing safe levels,' Keane says. Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores Second Amendment rights from 'over 90 years of draconian taxes.' Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill 'with the purest of motive.' 'Who asked for it? I asked,' said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added. Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the 'mass shooting generation' and said the bill would help 'gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.' Advertisement Among other concerns, control advocates say less regulation for silencers could make it harder for law enforcement to stop an active shooter. 'There's a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,' said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to convince the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren't budget-related. 'Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we've got,' Schumer said earlier this month.
Boston Globe
32 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
GOP can't include limits on Trump lawsuits in megabill, Senate official rules
'Individual district judges -- who don't even have authority over any of the other 92 district courts -- are single-handedly vetoing policies the American people elected President Trump to implement,' Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairm of the Judiciary Committee, said in announcing the proposal in March. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Republicans are pushing their bill to carry out Trump's agenda through Congress using special rules that shield legislation from a filibuster, depriving Democrats of the ability to block it. But to qualify for that protection, the legislation must only include proposals that directly change federal spending and not add to long-term deficits. Advertisement The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, makes such judgments. She ruled that the measure did not meet the requirements, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. 'Senate Republicans tried to write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law -- gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution, and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'It was nothing short of an assault on the system of checks and balances that has anchored this nation since its founding.' Advertisement Senate Republicans sought to target the preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders that often block administration policies. Republicans in the House passed a measure in their version of their party's major policy bill to impose limits on federal judges' power to hold people in contempt. The actions came as federal judges have opened inquiries about whether to hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating their orders in cases related to its aggressive deportation efforts. The decision on Sunday is part of a broader review MacDonough is conducting of the Republican-written legislation, which includes large tax cuts and reductions in social programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. She ruled that Republicans could include in their bill a divisive measure that would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., opposes that provision and has said he intends to introduce an amendment to try to kill the measure. MacDonough also rejected a GOP plan to push some of the costs of nutrition assistance, formerly known as SNAP, onto the states, a ruling that has sent Republicans back to the drawing board to find another strategy for covering tens of billions of dollars of the bill's cost. She was expected to work into the week evaluating the measure and instructing Republicans to strip out any provision she deems out of order, including whether they can use a budget trick that would make extending the 2017 tax cuts appear to be free. Advertisement If Republicans fail to remove the measures she deems out of order, Democrats could challenge the bill on the floor, forcing Republicans to muster 60 votes to advance it. That would effectively kill the legislation since Democrats are solidly opposed. This article originally appeared in
Black America Web
an hour ago
- Black America Web
The Disrespect: Trump Disregards Juneteenth, Says US Has ‘Too Many Non-Working Holidays'
Source: MANDEL NGAN / Getty Black MAGA, y'all alright? Donald Trump has once again shown us who he is, the most un-American, unproductive, and unapologetically divisive figure ever elected to the highest office in the land, who has the audacity to complain about 'non-working' holidays—namely, Juneteenth. On Thursday (Jun 19), as Black Americans celebrated Juneteenth, commemorating the end of chattel slavery in the United States, Trump didn't issue a statement, attend an event, or offer even a hollow gesture of recognition. Instead, he took to his communication platform, Truth Social, to complain that America has 'too many non-working holidays,' intentionally ignoring one of the most historically significant dates for our community. 'Too many non-working holidays in America. It is costing our Country $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to keep all of these businesses closed,' Trump said Thursday on Truth Social without explicitly mentioning Juneteenth. Allow me to say the quiet part out loud: This wasn't an oversight; it was an intentional and calculated decision to disrespect. While Trump spent the holiday doing nothing, former President Joe Biden spent the day honoring Juneteenth at the exact site where Union soldiers arrived in 1865 to inform more than 250,000 enslaved people of their freedom, Reedy Chapel AME Church in Galveston, Texas. It's a stark contrast moment that shows the difference between honoring American history and actively trying to erase it. According to the White House, Trump had initially planned to sign a proclamation recognizing Juneteenth, but that plan was quietly scrapped without explanation after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed the administration was 'working 24/7' before dismissing the need for a Juneteenth proclamation altogether. 'I'm not tracking his signature on a proclamation today,' she said. 'I know this is a federal holiday.' What's more disrespectful is that this is the same administration that uses Black people as props while refusing to protect Black life or recognize Black history. Whether it's photo ops with Black pastors, staged roundtables with cherry-picked community 'leaders,' lying on us with fake stats, or parading out HUD Secretary Scott Turner for cover, Trump's playbook is always the same: surround yourself with Black faces while ignoring Black voices. And let's talk directly to the 30% of Black voters who proudly say they support Trump. This is what you're co-signing—a man who weaponizes the Black struggle when it suits his narrative and ignores it when it requires decorum. Trump claims to have 'made Juneteenth famous' in 2020, as if generations of Black Americans haven't been celebrating the day with parades, cookouts, and sacred remembrance for over a century, only to pretend a few years later that it doesn't matter—and that's the bigger issue. Trump's rejection of Juneteenth isn't just disrespectful; it's part of a much larger and more dangerous pattern by an elderly man who's waging war on DEI initiatives, rewriting curriculum to exclude critical race theory, and gutting federal protections for Black workers. And let's not forget, Trump had no problem announcing two new holidays, Victory Days for both world wars — including one that already exists as Veterans Day, but Juneteenth is suddenly too costly, because it's too Black. It's clear that Trump's disregard for Juneteenth is not about the number of holidays, but instead about denying the truth of America's past to protect the illusion of its innocence and solidifying to his base that acknowledging Black liberation is optional. Deepak Sarma, inaugural distinguished scholar in the public humanities at Case Western Reserve University, told HuffPost that Trump's reversal on Juneteenth this year shows that his political strategies embrace 'cruelty,' and that he employed a 'bait-and-switch' in an attempt to woo Black supporters; noting that Trump is 'appealing only to his MAGA constituents, many of whom were covert, and now are overt, racists,' and he has discarded the concerns of his Black supporters. 'This is consistent with his Machiavellian political philosophy, which embraces deception, cruelty, and immorality to achieve his selfish goals,' Sarma told the publication. '[Rejecting] DEI, embracing pro-life, utilizing ICE, are all ways to cater to MAGA voters.' Since the beginning of his second term, Trump has done more to dismantle Black progress than almost any president in modern history. From banning DEI programs to banning books about Black history, his record speaks louder than his silence ever could. So yes, Trump's refusal to acknowledge Juneteenth is disrespectful; it's also entirely on brand, serving as a reminder that his presidency is built on white grievance, historical revisionism, and the suppression of truth. SEE ALSO: Thanks To Donald Trump, The American Dream Is Dead Donald Trump, Executive Overreach, And Project 2025's Blueprint SEE ALSO The Disrespect: Trump Disregards Juneteenth, Says US Has 'Too Many Non-Working Holidays' was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
