U.S. government moves to seize land from New Mexico diocese to build border wall
U.S. federal government filed a civil action to seize land from the Diocese of Las Cruces for border wall construction. The eminent domain request, submitted by DHS, seeks property northwest of El Paso, Texas, to build roads, fencing, barriers, and security infrastructure. The diocese argues the seizure would substantially burden its religious freedom and affect parishioners' ability to worship on its property. The government offered approximately $183,000 in compensation, and the case also names the Doña Ana County treasurer.
4 months ago
The U.S. federal government has filed an eminent‑domain lawsuit to acquire roughly 14 acres of land owned by the Diocese of Las Cruces, New Mexico, so it can extend a “Smart Wall” along the U.S.–Mexico border. The diocese argues that the seizure would seriously burden the free exercise of religion at the Mount Cristo Rey pilgrimage site, while the government maintains the land is needed for border security infrastructure and offers just compensation of about $183 000 1 2 3.
The Department of Homeland Security, through Customs and Border Protection, filed the civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on May 7, naming the diocese and the treasurer of Doña Ana County as defendants. The complaint seeks the land to “construct, install, operate, and maintain roads, fencing, vehicle barriers, security lighting, cameras, sensors, and related structures” for the border wall 1 3.
The government states it will provide “just compensation” based on fair market value, estimated at $183,071, in accordance with the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause 1 2 3. A CBP spokesperson said the agency prefers voluntary acquisition but will resort to eminent domain if necessary 2.
In a May 8 filing, the Diocese of Las Cruces contended that the seizure would “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion for the diocese, its parishioners, and other faithful who gather on the property 1 3. The diocese plans to invoke both the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), arguing that the government must demonstrate a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means 2.
The diocese asked the court to halt the eminent‑domain proceeding until the religious‑freedom issues are fully adjudicated 1 3.
Mount Cristo Rey, a 4,675‑foot peak in Sunland Park, is topped by a 29‑foot limestone statue of Jesus Christ. Since 1939 the site has been a major pilgrimage destination, drawing thousands of visitors each year for annual events such as the October pilgrimage and Good Friday services 2.
Volunteers and caretakers describe the mountain as a “family heirloom” and a place where pilgrims climb on their knees, seeking spiritual blessings 2. Conservationists also warn that wall construction could threaten local species and water resources 2.
If the court grants the government’s eminent‑domain request, the diocese argues the wall would “irreparably damage its religious and cultural sanctity,” obstruct pilgrimage routes, and turn a sacred space into a symbol of division 2. Conversely, the government maintains the wall segment is essential for “securing the United States/Mexico border” and will proceed with the “Smart Wall” design if voluntary acquisition fails 2.
Assess Catholic Church’s doctrinal stance on eminent domain for state projects
The Catholic Church does not treat “eminent domain” as automatically just or automatically unjust. Doctrinally, the Church affirms private property as real and morally protected, but also teaches that property has a social function grounded in the universal destination of goods, and that political authority may regulate or, in truly demanding circumstances, expropriate in the name of the common good—provided this is done not arbitrarily and without destroying the essence of property rights.
Catholic teaching begins by insisting that the right to private property is morally legitimate and protected by the commandment against unjust taking and wronging one’s neighbor in matters of goods.
At the same time, ownership does not cancel the prior gift of creation to the whole human race. The universal destination of goods remains “primordial,” even when the common good requires respect for private property.
This means property is best understood as stewardship: the owner is to use legitimately owned goods not merely as exclusive, but as capable of benefiting others as well.
The Catechism explicitly teaches that political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.
In addition, Catholic social teaching assigns the state a basic economic-political role: guaranteeing the institutional and juridical conditions (e.g., security of rights, public services) so that people can work and produce and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
So, doctrinally, the Church sees the state not as the owner of all property, but as the public authority empowered to ensure that ownership serves the common good rather than becomes socially destructive.
A key Catholic principle is stated in the tradition of social encyclicals and picked up in later Church teaching on land reform: when some property arrangements impede the common good, “the common good sometimes demands” expropriation.
This aligns with the way Pius XI describes the state’s power: under natural and divine law, public authority can determine what is permitted and what is not permitted to owners regarding the use of their property—while leaving the natural right to property intact.
Crucially, the Church frames this not as the state “abolishing” property, but as the state controlling its exercise so that private ownership is brought into harmony with the common weal.
Catholic doctrine is particularly strict about how any such measure must be bounded.
Pius XI states that the state is not permitted to discharge its duty arbitrarily, because the natural right to private property (including inheritance) “ought always to remain intact and inviolate.”
The same theme appears in later teaching on social justice and land reform: public authorities cannot use their power in a way that violates the natural right to private property.
Pius XI makes a strong claim against state hostility toward ownership: the state cannot treat private property rights as something it may exhaust or abolish; rather, control must be in service to the common good and must safeguard property rights.
Firmissimam Constantiam emphasizes that even when the common good requires restrictions on ownership, one must “save the essence of the primary and fundamental rights,” while avoiding violence or changes that become more harmful than the evil intended to be corrected.
Pius XII adds a further moral caution: even in exceptional conditions, the moral law requires that the lawfulness and “real necessity” of such measures be examined with “the greatest rigor” according to standards of the common good.
On Catholic doctrine, a state’s use of eminent domain can be morally defensible when it genuinely serves the common good and respects the moral limits above—especially the requirement of non-arbitrariness, necessity, and protection of the fundamental right to property.
What is not doctrinally acceptable is:
From the cited texts, the moral assessment of eminent domain can be framed as these checks:
Catholic doctrine supports the idea that political authority may regulate property for the common good, and in certain circumstances the common good can “sometimes demand” expropriation; but it sets firm moral constraints: measures must not be arbitrary, must respect the natural right to private property (including inheritance), must preserve the essence of ownership, and must be justified by real necessity—particularly in exceptional conditions.