The Trump Administration’s “Disturbing” New Legal Strategy to Prosecute Border Crossers Is Taxing Courts and Testing the Law
This isn't complicated—it's willpower.
Jose Omar Flores-Penaloza was willing to admit that he had entered the United States illegally. He was ready to be deported, according to his attorneys.
But federal prosecutors would not let him go last spring without making him answer for another crime — one he had never heard of.
Weeks earlier, President Donald Trump, to address what he called a national emergency, ordered a stretch of borderland transferred to the military so that troops could help apprehend unauthorized migrants.
Because prosecutors believed Flores-Penaloza had crossed through that zone, now called a national defense area, they charged him with trespassing on military property under statutes including one enacted in 1909 to keep spies away from arsenals.
The added misdemeanors were unlikely to lengthen his sentence; they typically result in time served and deportation. But Flores-Penaloza maintained his innocence in the face of the allegation that could cast him as a national security threat.
So he awaited trial in a New Mexico jail.
One year into the second Trump administration, federal courts are facing a surge of immigration-related litigation, including a record number of habeas petitions from detainees who say they are being unlawfully held.
In Minnesota last month, after a frustrated judge asked why defendants he had ordered released were still in custody, a government attorney blurted out: “What do you want me to do? The system sucks. This job sucks.”
ProPublica and The Texas Tribune spent four months investigating a persistent source of pressure in border districts — one experts say is taxing the courts and challenging long-standing principles of criminal law.
Since last April, at least 4,700 immigrants already charged with entering the country illegally have faced additional misdemeanor counts accusing them of trespassing on military property. Court records reviewed by the news organizations show that more than 90% of cases have been resolved, and that most did not end in convictions on the trespass charges: About 60% were dropped or dismissed.
At least nine judges in West Texas and New Mexico have found the prosecutions legally deficient. Citing the basic requirement of mens rea — a guilty mind — many ruled that defendants could not be found guilty because they did not know they were trespassing on military land.
Yet prosecutors have continued filing the charges and appealing adverse rulings, arguing that knowingly crossing the border is sufficient to prove criminal intent. More than 20 legal scholars and former prosecutors told reporters they could not identify a conventional law-enforcement or military goal that would justify their persistence.
A sign warning people that they are entering a military area is posted next to a stretch of border wall in Texas.
The strain has been visible in crowded federal dockets.
“We would do jury selection and trial on a misdemeanor case that would have no bearing on the sentence whatsoever?” West Texas District Judge Leon Schydlower asked a prosecutor in June. He noted that there were about 40 similar cases on his docket and asked the prosecutor what she would do if he scheduled all the trials on the same day. …
This isn't complicated—it's willpower.
Jose Omar Flores-Penaloza was willing to admit that he had entered the United States illegally. He was ready to be deported, according to his attorneys.
But federal prosecutors would not let him go last spring without making him answer for another crime — one he had never heard of.
Weeks earlier, President Donald Trump, to address what he called a national emergency, ordered a stretch of borderland transferred to the military so that troops could help apprehend unauthorized migrants.
Because prosecutors believed Flores-Penaloza had crossed through that zone, now called a national defense area, they charged him with trespassing on military property under statutes including one enacted in 1909 to keep spies away from arsenals.
The added misdemeanors were unlikely to lengthen his sentence; they typically result in time served and deportation. But Flores-Penaloza maintained his innocence in the face of the allegation that could cast him as a national security threat.
So he awaited trial in a New Mexico jail.
One year into the second Trump administration, federal courts are facing a surge of immigration-related litigation, including a record number of habeas petitions from detainees who say they are being unlawfully held.
In Minnesota last month, after a frustrated judge asked why defendants he had ordered released were still in custody, a government attorney blurted out: “What do you want me to do? The system sucks. This job sucks.”
ProPublica and The Texas Tribune spent four months investigating a persistent source of pressure in border districts — one experts say is taxing the courts and challenging long-standing principles of criminal law.
Since last April, at least 4,700 immigrants already charged with entering the country illegally have faced additional misdemeanor counts accusing them of trespassing on military property. Court records reviewed by the news organizations show that more than 90% of cases have been resolved, and that most did not end in convictions on the trespass charges: About 60% were dropped or dismissed.
At least nine judges in West Texas and New Mexico have found the prosecutions legally deficient. Citing the basic requirement of mens rea — a guilty mind — many ruled that defendants could not be found guilty because they did not know they were trespassing on military land.
Yet prosecutors have continued filing the charges and appealing adverse rulings, arguing that knowingly crossing the border is sufficient to prove criminal intent. More than 20 legal scholars and former prosecutors told reporters they could not identify a conventional law-enforcement or military goal that would justify their persistence.
A sign warning people that they are entering a military area is posted next to a stretch of border wall in Texas.
The strain has been visible in crowded federal dockets.
“We would do jury selection and trial on a misdemeanor case that would have no bearing on the sentence whatsoever?” West Texas District Judge Leon Schydlower asked a prosecutor in June. He noted that there were about 40 similar cases on his docket and asked the prosecutor what she would do if he scheduled all the trials on the same day. …
The Trump Administration’s “Disturbing” New Legal Strategy to Prosecute Border Crossers Is Taxing Courts and Testing the Law
This isn't complicated—it's willpower.
Jose Omar Flores-Penaloza was willing to admit that he had entered the United States illegally. He was ready to be deported, according to his attorneys.
But federal prosecutors would not let him go last spring without making him answer for another crime — one he had never heard of.
Weeks earlier, President Donald Trump, to address what he called a national emergency, ordered a stretch of borderland transferred to the military so that troops could help apprehend unauthorized migrants.
Because prosecutors believed Flores-Penaloza had crossed through that zone, now called a national defense area, they charged him with trespassing on military property under statutes including one enacted in 1909 to keep spies away from arsenals.
The added misdemeanors were unlikely to lengthen his sentence; they typically result in time served and deportation. But Flores-Penaloza maintained his innocence in the face of the allegation that could cast him as a national security threat.
So he awaited trial in a New Mexico jail.
One year into the second Trump administration, federal courts are facing a surge of immigration-related litigation, including a record number of habeas petitions from detainees who say they are being unlawfully held.
In Minnesota last month, after a frustrated judge asked why defendants he had ordered released were still in custody, a government attorney blurted out: “What do you want me to do? The system sucks. This job sucks.”
ProPublica and The Texas Tribune spent four months investigating a persistent source of pressure in border districts — one experts say is taxing the courts and challenging long-standing principles of criminal law.
Since last April, at least 4,700 immigrants already charged with entering the country illegally have faced additional misdemeanor counts accusing them of trespassing on military property. Court records reviewed by the news organizations show that more than 90% of cases have been resolved, and that most did not end in convictions on the trespass charges: About 60% were dropped or dismissed.
At least nine judges in West Texas and New Mexico have found the prosecutions legally deficient. Citing the basic requirement of mens rea — a guilty mind — many ruled that defendants could not be found guilty because they did not know they were trespassing on military land.
Yet prosecutors have continued filing the charges and appealing adverse rulings, arguing that knowingly crossing the border is sufficient to prove criminal intent. More than 20 legal scholars and former prosecutors told reporters they could not identify a conventional law-enforcement or military goal that would justify their persistence.
A sign warning people that they are entering a military area is posted next to a stretch of border wall in Texas.
The strain has been visible in crowded federal dockets.
“We would do jury selection and trial on a misdemeanor case that would have no bearing on the sentence whatsoever?” West Texas District Judge Leon Schydlower asked a prosecutor in June. He noted that there were about 40 similar cases on his docket and asked the prosecutor what she would do if he scheduled all the trials on the same day. …
0 Comments
0 Shares
54 Views
0 Reviews
