A federal judge in New Mexico dismissed trespassing charges against migrants who entered a newly declared military zone along the U.S.-Mexico border, dealing a significant blow to the Trump administration’s enhanced border enforcement strategy.

At a Glance

• Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth ruled migrants were unaware they were entering a restricted military zone
• The New Mexico National Defense Area was established in April along 180 miles of the border
• Defense attorneys successfully argued that warning signs were inadequate
• Up to May 9, 339 migrants had been charged for entering the military zone
• The Defense Department’s use of military areas for immigration enforcement raises legal concerns under the Posse Comitatus Act

Judge Rules Migrants Lacked Knowledge of Military Zone

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth dismissed charges against migrants caught crossing into a newly established military zone on the U.S.-Mexico border. In his ruling, Wormuth determined that prosecutors failed to prove the migrants knew they were entering a restricted military area. This decision directly challenges the enforcement mechanism established by the Trump administration in April when the Defense Department designated a 180-mile strip of land along the New Mexico border as a National Defense Area.

The military zone was created as part of a broader strategy to deter illegal crossings by imposing harsher penalties. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had previously stated that those entering the military zones could face up to 10 years imprisonment. However, Judge Wormuth’s ruling found that the government must prove migrants knowingly entered a restricted area – a burden prosecutors failed to meet in these cases.

Inadequate Warning Signs at Heart of Dismissal

Defense attorneys successfully argued that warning signs posted along the border were insufficient to notify migrants that they were entering a restricted military zone. The judge agreed with this assessment, noting that the prosecution failed to demonstrate migrants had adequate notice. While U.S. Attorney Ryan Ellison has claimed hundreds of “restricted area” signs have been posted in Spanish and English along New Mexico’s border stretch, the court found this measure inadequate.

Since the establishment of the military zone, federal authorities had charged hundreds of migrants with unauthorized access to the militarized area. By May 9, court records show that 339 migrants faced charges specifically for entering the New Mexico military area. These individuals were potentially facing charges that carried sentences of up to 18 months in prison.

Legal and Constitutional Questions

The dismissal raises significant legal questions about the Trump administration’s border strategy and the use of military designations for immigration enforcement. Legal experts have expressed concerns that using Defense Department authority in this manner might violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of military personnel to enforce domestic policies. The federal public defender’s office in Las Cruces had sought dismissal of these charges on multiple grounds.

This ruling follows other legal challenges to immigration enforcement tactics. In Texas, a judge previously dismissed a criminal trespassing charge against a migrant arrested under Governor Greg Abbott’s Operation Lone Star. That lawsuit argued Abbott’s plan violated the U.S. Constitution by interfering with federal immigration enforcement responsibilities.

Government Expected to Appeal

Sources close to the case indicate the government is expected to appeal Judge Wormuth’s orders. The Defense Department authorized U.S. troops to temporarily detain immigrants in these zones as part of the enhanced enforcement strategy. This arrangement transferred oversight of border land to the military, creating a new approach to border security that is now facing judicial scrutiny.

The dismissal represents a significant setback for the administration’s border strategy, which has employed various approaches to deter illegal crossings. Other initiatives have also faced legal headwinds, including a plan to deport migrants to Libya that was halted by a federal judge, and challenges to the use of the Alien Enemies Act against Venezuelans suspected of ties to criminal organizations.