Nonprofits Sue Federal Government Over Military Control of New Mexico Borderlands

A coalition of nonprofits has filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's decision to designate over 109,651 acres of public land along the New Mexico-Mexico border as a military installation. The plaintiffs include the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Battalion Search and Rescue, and Southern Border Communities Coalition, who argue that the Trump administration is misusing "national defense areas" to facilitate immigration enforcement in violation of federal law.

The lawsuit asserts that by designating this area as part of Fort Huachuca for three years, starting from March 2025, the government has effectively transformed public land into a military zone without proper legal authorization. This move allegedly circumvents longstanding restrictions on military involvement in civilian law enforcement activities. Brian Netter, legal director at Democracy Forward and one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs, emphasized that such designations are an "extraordinary abuse of power" with severe implications for border communities.

Netter argued that public lands cannot be reclassified as military installations merely through executive fiat. He stated, “Our Constitution and laws impose clear limits on the use of the military for civilian law enforcement.” The Defense Department's assumption of jurisdiction over these lands from the Department of the Interior in April 2025 marks a significant shift in how federal agencies manage border security.

The lawsuit specifically targets the legality of transferring public land through emergency powers, asserting that no statute authorizes the creation of "national defense areas" on formerly public land. Historically, such restrictions have been applied temporarily to protect people or property during emergencies but not for long-term immigration enforcement purposes. The plaintiffs contend this new designation is contrary to established practices and undermines civilian oversight.

Beyond legal challenges, the nonprofits highlight how these military zones disrupt their operations. These groups rely heavily on access to public lands for conservation efforts, border community support, and humanitarian aid provision. James R. Holeman of Battalion Search and Rescue noted that his organization conducts monthly searches along the Arizona and New Mexico border, recovering remains of migrants who have perished while crossing illegally.

Holeman expressed deep concern over the increasing limitations imposed on search and rescue operations due to military control. He stated, “We’re being locked out of areas where we could systematically search for missing individuals.” The restricted access hampers efforts to locate and recover deceased migrants, a critical humanitarian issue that goes largely unaddressed by federal authorities.

The broader implications of this legal battle extend beyond the immediate concerns of border communities. It raises questions about the balance between national security measures and civil liberties, particularly in regions with significant public land use. As the case progresses, it could set important precedents regarding the extent to which military forces can be deployed for immigration enforcement purposes.

The lawsuit underscores a growing tension between federal agencies implementing stricter border control policies and local organizations dedicated to humanitarian efforts and environmental conservation. This conflict highlights the need for transparent legal frameworks that protect both national security interests and the rights of communities affected by such measures.