Federal judge says government can deposit money to seize diocesan land for border fencing
Federal judge allows $183,071 deposit for U.S. government land acquisition at Mount Cristo Rey, New Mexico, to build border fence. The decision permits the deposit while the Diocese of Las Cruces retains the right to challenge the eminent‑domain seizure. The disputed parcel is a religious site with a 29‑foot Christ statue, and the diocese argues the takeover infringes on religious freedom. Judge noted that transferring title is not final and does not bar the diocese from contesting the taking. The case underscores the conflict between border‑security projects and protection of religious property rights.
4 months ago
The U.S. District Court in New Mexico has ruled that the federal government may place a six‑figure escrow deposit while it pursues the eminent‑domain seizure of a parcel of land owned by the Diocese of Las Cruces for the construction of border‑security infrastructure, a decision that leaves the diocese’s legal challenge intact. 1
A June 15 order by Judge Kenneth Gonzales permits the government to deposit $183,071 “for the safekeeping of funds pending resolution” of the dispute. 1 The judge emphasized that the deposit does not interfere with the diocese’s right to contest the taking or render any title transfer final or irrevocable. 2
The Department of Homeland Security seeks the tract, located northwest of El Paso, Texas, to “construct, install, operate, and maintain roads, fencing, vehicle barriers, security lighting, cameras, sensors, and related structures” aimed at strengthening the U.S.–Mexico border in New Mexico. 1 2
The diocese argues that the land includes the base of Mount Cristo Rey, where a 29‑foot statue of Christ marks a shrine that draws thousands of pilgrims each year. It contends that the seizure would constitute a “significant infringement on religious freedom and the rights of worship.” 1 2
Since May, the diocese has been fighting the eminent‑domain action in federal court, seeking to block both the seizure and the deposit of funds. The judge’s ruling allows the government to move forward with the deposit while the broader legal battle over the validity of the taking continues. 1
The decision underscores the tension between border‑security initiatives and religious‑freedom claims, highlighting how eminent‑domain powers can intersect with properties of spiritual significance. It also sets a procedural precedent for allowing governmental escrow deposits during ongoing land‑seizure disputes. 2*
How does canon law safeguard religious property against eminent domain?
Canon law does not contain a specific canon that says “the state may not exercise eminent domain.” Instead, it safeguards religious property in three main ways: (1) by affirming the Church’s innate capacity and independence regarding temporal goods, (2) by defining who owns those goods and how they may be acquired or lost, and (3) by protecting sacred objects and their dedication from being treated as ordinary (profane) property.
Canon law teaches that the Catholic Church can acquire, retain, administer, and alienate temporal goods “by innate right” and independently from civil power, so long as the goods are pursued for the Church’s proper purposes (notably divine worship, support of clergy/ministers, and apostolate/charity).
It also establishes that ownership belongs to the juridic person that acquired the goods legitimately—under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff.
Why this matters for eminent domain: even when civil law operates through compulsory taking, canon law frames the Church’s position as one of legitimate ownership and independent governance over temporal goods, grounded in ecclesial right rather than civil permission.
One indirect protection against involuntary loss to outsiders is the way canon law treats prescription (acquisition of rights by long possession under the law).
Why this matters for eminent domain: eminent domain is not prescription, but both involve a loss of control. Canon law’s approach helps protect Church property at least against certain forms of “legal capture” over time and—especially for sacred property—against profanation and improper transfers of status.
Canon law’s strongest qualitative safeguard concerns property that is not just a piece of real estate, but a sacred object (e.g., items dedicated for worship).
Canon 1269 restricts profane use unless dedication/blessing is lost, and it restricts acquisition by others where the object belongs to a public ecclesiastical juridic person.
Why this matters: eminent domain typically concerns title or possession. Canon 1269 addresses something deeper than title: it safeguards the object’s sacred status and permitted use, which is central to why religious property matters.
Canon 1257 clarifies that temporal goods belonging to the universal Church, the Apostolic See, or other public ecclesiastical juridic persons are ecclesiastical goods governed by canon law and their own statutes; private juridic persons’ temporal goods are governed by their statutes unless canon law provides otherwise.
Why this matters: where civil authorities act, canon law still governs how the Church understands ownership, stewardship, and internal administration of the property.
Canon law also preserves higher-level legal arrangements: the canons do not abrogate or derogate from agreements between the Apostolic See and nations/political societies, so those agreements continue despite contrary prescriptions of the Code.
Why this matters: if your situation involves a jurisdiction where the Holy See (or relevant Church authorities) has an agreement addressing property protection or religious freedom, that agreement may provide additional constraints or protections beyond the Code itself.
Given the texts above, canon law strongly affirms the Church’s right to own and govern temporal goods independently from civil power, but it does not expressly override civil eminent domain procedures.
So, in practice, the “safeguard” canon law provides is chiefly:
Canon law safeguards religious property against “state taking” indirectly by asserting the Church’s innate and independent right to own and administer temporal goods, by defining ecclesiastical ownership and governance, and by protecting sacred objects from improper profanation and from certain kinds of acquisition—while leaving the details of eminent domain procedures largely to civil law unless protected by specific agreements.