HR-9739-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Veronica Escobar (D-TX)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the use of federal funds to litigate an active eminent domain case (U.S. v. 14.259 Acres of Land, D.N.M. No. 2:26-cv-01458) or pursue any other eminent domain action against Mount Cristo Rey in Sunland Park, New Mexico. It would also prohibit federal funds from being used to construct, install, operate, or maintain roads, fencing, vehicle barriers, lighting, cameras, sensors, or related border security infrastructure on or near the site.
Who benefits
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Las Cruces, which owns the property and would retain full control of it. The roughly 40,000 annual pilgrims — primarily Catholic faithful from Texas, New Mexico, and the Mexican state of Chihuahua — who visit the site for religious observances. Residents of Sunland Park, New Mexico, who live near the site. Religious liberty advocates broadly. Cross-border communities whose cultural and religious ties to the site would be preserved.
Who is hurt
Federal border security agencies (primarily DHS/CBP) that would lose the ability to use this land corridor for border infrastructure. Border security advocates who argue the area represents a gap in physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. Taxpayers who have already funded the litigation now being halted (sunk costs). Landowners in adjacent areas who may face increased border crossing activity if this segment remains unbarricaded.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the federal government's eminent domain action directly targets a recognized Catholic holy site visited by tens of thousands of pilgrims annually, constituting a substantial burden on religious exercise. They contend that seizing or constructing infrastructure on land owned by a religious institution and used for active worship and pilgrimage raises serious First Amendment and Religious Freedom Restoration Act concerns, and that Congress has both the authority and the obligation to prevent such an infringement by defunding the litigation and any related construction.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the federal government has broad constitutional authority under Article IV and the Commerce Clause to secure the border and acquire land for that purpose through eminent domain, and that Congress should not use appropriations riders to halt active federal litigation mid-case. They contend that singling out one parcel for permanent protection based on its religious ownership sets a precedent that could complicate border security planning across other sensitive or privately held land, and that the bill effectively grants a religious institution a categorical exemption from federal land acquisition law.