They were in the country illegally when the incident happened. They now have money in their pockets and temporary permits.
One should parse this sentence carefully. "They are" is present tense and does not say they were legal at the time of the incident. There is an excellent chance that the plaintiffs' lawyer locked in their legal status post-incident so as to secure their ability to have continued standing in the court and be able to secure ownership of the property. The lawyer is thus able to secure his fee when the property is sold.
A simple step in rationalizing this conjecture is answering the posit of why "legal" immigrants were crossing the border at this defendant's property line?
They were illegal at the time. Because they could claim to be victims of a crime in the US (although the man who supposedly beat them was aquitted of that charge and even fed them cookies), they are allowed to stay year to year.
For once, the NYT has better coverage.
(this was posted above)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1467244/posts?page=8#8
They were illegal aliens when they crossed the border. Once they filed charges against the property owners, they were given temporary legal status.
At the time of the incident they were not legal. They took advantage of a federal law/regulation which allows temporary legal status for those who aid law enforcement by testifying in court, or providing information to LEOs. However that provision was most likely intended for small fry drug mules who turned in their bosses, or folks who turned in coyotes (illegal immigrant smugglers)