ACLU New Mexico condemns military's role at southern border
Military authorized to detain undocumented immigrants in New Mexico
U.S. Northern Command (Northcom) announced Monday that troops can now temporarily detain and search trespassers, provide medical assistance and implement crowd control on the military-controlled land until appropriate law enforcement can take custody of an individual, according to a report by The Hill.
Rebecca Sheff, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of New Mexico, said the military's expanded role at the southern border is concerning. 'The expansion of military detention powers in the 'New Mexico National Defense Area'—also known as the 'border buffer zone'—represents a dangerous erosion of the constitutional principle that the military should not be policing civilians,' a statement by Sheff read in part.
This announcement comes days after Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum announced that the 109,651 acres of federal land in New Mexico along the Mexico border will be transferred to the Department of the Army to support U.S. Border Patrol operations.
The U.S. Department of the Interior said troops would assist by constructing and maintaining border security infrastructure, increasing regular patrols by federal personnel, disrupting foreign terrorist threats to the country, and curbing illegal cross-border activities.
Sheff's full statement can be read below:
'As New Mexicans, we have deep concerns about the enhanced militarization of our borderlands communities. The expansion of military detention powers in the 'New Mexico National Defense Area'—also known as the 'border buffer zone'—represents a dangerous erosion of the constitutional principle that the military should not be policing civilians. This approach seems to be akin to Texas's Operation Lone Star on steroids, threatening the longstanding relationships we've built with our neighboring communities in Mexico. By authorizing service members to detain, search, and conduct 'crowd control,' these new authorities undermine our state's values of dignity, respect, and community. We don't want militarized zones where border residents—including U.S. citizens—face potential prosecution simply for being in the wrong place. This isn't how we want to be in relation with our neighbors. This dangerous expansion of military authorities threatens both our civil liberties and the cultural fabric that makes our borderlands unique.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Judges Keep Restrictions on L.A. Immigration Arrests, in Setback for Trump Agenda
The Trump administration's agenda suffered another setback late Friday when an appeals court upheld a decision that temporarily halts federal agents from making immigration-related arrests in the Los Angeles area without probable cause. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court's finding that the raids appeared to exclusively rely on a person's race and other factors, like speaking Spanish. The administration's immigration raids have stirred protests and fear for many Latinos across the city, its suburbs and agricultural regions. The panel's decision merely allows a temporary restraining order that had been imposed by the lower court to remain in place. It curtails, for now, the far-reaching operations that began in June as the case proceeds through the courts. Judge Maame E. Frimpong of Federal District Court in Los Angeles has scheduled a hearing in late September as she weighs a longer-lasting order known as a preliminary injunction. In their ruling on Friday night, the appellate judges wrote that the plaintiffs 'are likely to succeed' in showing that federal agents made arrests based on how people looked, how they spoke and where they lived or worked. Civil-rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and Public Counsel filed suit on July 2 accusing the Trump administration of unconstitutional sweeps since early June. Nearly 3,000 people have been arrested. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
GOP bullish on dismantling Voting Rights Act
Republicans are increasingly bullish they can whittle away at the Voting Rights Act (VRA) as Democrats renew a long-shot effort to broaden the landmark law that turns 60 next week. The Supreme Court could become the arbiter of Republicans' efforts, with a major Louisiana redistricting battle set for rehearing next term and other battles bubbling up in the lower courts. The conservative-majority high court has already eviscerated significant parts of the VRA, but the new legal fronts could reshape decades-long precedent of legal battles over political power. 'There are clouds around, and a lot of them are circling the Supreme Court at the moment,' said Adriel Cepeda Derieux, the deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Voting Rights Project. With Democrats viewing the law as under siege from federal court rulings, a group of Democratic senators reintroduced a bill Tuesday that would restore and expand protections of the VRA. The legislation would reimpose the VRA's requirement struck down in 2013 by the Supreme Court that jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory practices receive federal approval before changing their voting laws; prevent voters from being purged from voter rolls if they haven't voted recently; and add protections for poll workers against threats and intimidation. 'Voting rights are preservative of all other rights,' Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) said at a press conference announcing the bill's reintroduction. 'The democracy is the very house in which we live. It is the framework in which we get to fight for the things that we care about.' But the bill faces long odds in a Republican-controlled Congress and could face constitutional challenges, if ever enacted. Meanwhile, Republicans have set their sights on weakening the VRA by preventing voters and private groups from enforcing it. The GOP effort would cut off the ACLU and other prominent players that have long leveraged the law to challenge maps and voting practices, leaving lawsuits to the attorney general. 'Private litigants have been key to bringing these claims over the history of the Voting Rights Act's existence,' Cardozo Law School professor Wilfred Codrington said. 'And, in fact, all the cases that are sort of monumental cases include many private litigants. So, that is a big thing.' The push to eliminate a private right of action under the VRA has been met with mixed results so far. But Republicans feel encouraged by recent signals from some of the Supreme Court's conservative justices. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch in 2021 publicly questioned whether private parties could sue under Section 2 — the VRA's most prominent remaining provision — which prevents states from discriminating against voters because of their race or color. 'Our cases have assumed — without deciding — that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 furnishes an implied cause of action under §2,' Gorsuch wrote. 'Lower courts have treated this as an open question,' he stressed. Since then, Republicans have found success in one federal appeals court. In 2023, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed private groups can't bring Section 2 claims, turning away the Arkansas NAACP's claims that Arkansas's state House map packed and cracked Black voters. It effectively blocked private enforcement in the seven states covered by the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. The case was never appealed to the Supreme Court, but two recent decisions by the 8th Circuit are inching the issue closer to the justices. Native American tribes headed to the Supreme Court's emergency docket this month after the 8th Circuit ruled the tribes couldn't challenge North Dakota's state Legislature map. Last week, the justices lifted the ruling. Thomas and Gorsuch publicly dissented alongside a third conservative justice, Samuel Alito. No justice explained their reasoning, but the case could return to the justices. It's not only Section 2. On Monday, an 8th Circuit panel unanimously ruled a lesser-known provision of the VRA — Section 208, which allows blind and disabled voters to receive help voting from a person they choose — also can't be privately enforced. The decision rejected a challenge to an Arkansas voting law. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) celebrated the ruling, saying in a statement it 'means that officials can continue to enforce Arkansas's laws and voters can have confidence in our elections.' The question over private enforcement may be irrelevant, depending on other cases that raise whether Section 2 can survive at all. Republican states have increasingly argued race-based redistricting is no longer constitutional after progress made in recent decades. But voting rights advocates said they were hopeful that what remains of the VRA will have more endurance than some fear. Cepeda Derieux pointed to the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Allen v. Milligan, in which the court found a Republican-drawn map in Alabama likely violated the VRA in weakening Black voters' political power. He said this reinforced the constitutionality of Section 2, and the same legal reasoning was used in other cases to redraw maps in Louisiana and Mississippi. 'There's also cause for great hope,' he said. 'As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court … really upheld the heart of what remains of the Voting Rights Act.' Mark Gaber, the senior director of redistricting for the Campaign Legal Center, argued that those trying to further limit the law's purview have shown an 'overzealousness' that has hurt them, leading to the Milligan case in which the court's majority gave a 'full-throated reaffirmation' of the law's constitutionality. He believes some read too much immediately into Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence that the country may reach a point where the VRA's time has passed. 'They're pushing the private right of action theory … and various other theories to chip away at it. And we'll find out, but I don't think what Justice Kavanaugh was saying is, 'Tomorrow, bring me a case that questions this,'' Gaber said. The questions have returned as the Supreme Court considers the newest phase of the redistricting battle in Louisiana. The state's Republican leaders seek to uphold their new congressional map that adds a second majority-Black district. The state is in an awkward position. Louisiana begrudgingly added the second district because a lower court ruled a design with only one likely violated the VRA. But in separate litigation, Louisiana has taken legal positions that would undermine that lower ruling — that private groups can't enforce Section 2 and the provision is unconstitutional as applied to the state. The Supreme Court was set to decide the case this summer. But without explanation, the justices ordered the case be reargued next term. Codrington said he wasn't optimistic and believes the court wants to still use the case 'to do something big.' 'I think the court was particularly worried about dealing a major blow to the VRA at that time when lots of other institutional changes were happening through the Supreme Court,' Codrington said. The Supreme Court has yet to announce what legal question it will consider when the case is reargued, meaning the scope of the case remains unclear. But Thomas, at least, is ready to rein in Section 2. 'I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore,' Thomas wrote in a solo opinion last month.
Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Miami Herald
City rejects permit to build mosque over ‘anti-Muslim animus,' TN lawsuit says
A local Muslim congregation is suing a Tennessee city after officials delayed plans to build a mosque then rejected them completely. The lawsuit — filed July 25 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Bartlett Muslim Society — asks the court to declare the city's actions a violation of federal and state law and to make the city approve their building plans. 'Our congregation needs more space to worship, teach our children, and host community meals and gatherings,' Badrul Hossain, board president of the Bartlett Muslim Society, said in a July 25 news release. 'We have tried very hard to work with the city and have responded to any and all concerns raised, yet we were still denied a permit.' A spokesperson for the City of Bartlett told McClatchy News in a July 30 email they had not been officially served with the complaint and are unable to comment. According to the complaint, city officials have approved plans for Christian churches in similar or 'less favorable' situations, including one church in which 70 people signed a petition in opposition of the build. 'This is a clear case of interference with religious freedom,' Stella Yarbrough, ACLU-TN legal director said in the release. 'The facts don't support the permit denial, but they do reveal something deeper — an attempt to restrict a community's religious practices based on who they are.' Bartlett is about a 10-mile drive northeast from downtown Memphis. The Bartlett Muslim Society — made up of about 20 families — had plans to build a new worship space after outgrowing a commercial retail space it had been renting, according to the complaint. The rental space lacked room to accommodate religious needs, like keeping men and women separate during prayer, performing ablution and observing the Ramadan feast together, according to the complaint. But after purchasing land for a new mosque and submitting a special use permit application in 2023, the congregation was subjected to 'extensive, expensive, and purposeless delay as part of a sham permitting process,' attorneys said. This marked the start of what led to the suit accusing the city of violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000, which protects religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws, according to the Department of Justice. Unlike other applicants for the permit, the Bartlett Muslim Society had to complete a mandatory traffic study, which they paid more than $20,000 for, according to the complaint. Two city planning commission members said in private text messages they thought the traffic study was 'a total waste of time and money,' according to a public records request cited in the complaint. Despite the study's conclusion that the mosque wouldn't have a negative impact on traffic patterns, the commission voted unanimously in December to deny the request, and in February it was formally denied by the city, attorneys said. According to attorneys, the city also denied any attempts to compromise or find an alternate solution, imposing a burden on the group's religious exercise and discriminating against them based on religion. 'The real reason the (Bartlett Muslim Society's) permit was denied was anti-Muslim animus,' attorneys said. In previous years, Muslims have been perceived as facing a 'high degree of discrimination,' according to Pew Research Center. While that changed this year — with the share of Americans who said Muslims face discrimination at the lowest level in eight years — Muslims still remain among the top groups to be perceived as facing at least some discrimination, McClatchy News reported.
