WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to allow the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area to support its immigration crackdown, a significant defeat for the president’s efforts to send troops to U.S. cities.
The justices declined the Republican administration’s emergency request to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge April Perry that had blocked the deployment of troops. An appeals court also had refused to step in. The Supreme Court took more than two months to act.
Three justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, publicly dissented.
The high court order is not a final ruling but it could affect other lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s attempts to deploy the military in other Democratic-led cities.
“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the high court majority wrote.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he agreed with the decision to block the Chicago deployment, but would have left the president more latitude to deploy troops in possible future scenarios.
The outcome is a rare Supreme Court setback for Trump, who had won repeated victories in emergency appeals since he took office again in January. The conservative-dominated court has allowed Trump to ban transgender people from the military, claw back billions of dollars of congressionally approved federal spending, move aggressively against immigrants and fire the Senate-confirmed leaders of independent federal agencies.
Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker applauded Tuesday’s decision as a win for the state and country.
“American cities, suburbs, and communities should not have to faced masked federal agents asking for their papers, judging them for how they look or sound, and living in fear that President can deploy the military to their streets,” he said.
The White House did not immediately respond to an email message seeking comment.
In a dissent, Alito and Thomas said the court had no basis to reject Trump’s contention that the administration was unable to enforce immigration laws without troops. Gorsuch said he would have narrowly sided with the government based on the declarations of federal law enforcement officials.
The administration had initially sought the order to allow the deployment of troops from Illinois and Texas, but the Texas contingent of about 200 National Guard troops was later sent home from Chicago.
The Trump administration has argued that the troops are needed “to protect federal personnel and property from violent resistance against the enforcement of federal immigration laws.”
But Perry wrote that she found no substantial evidence that a “danger of rebellion” is brewing in Illinois and no reason to believe the protests there had gotten in the way of Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Perry had initially blocked the deployment for two weeks. But in October, she extended the order indefinitely while the Supreme Court reviewed the case.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in the west Chicago suburb of Broadview has been the site of tense protests, where federal agents have previously used tear gas and other chemical agents on protesters and journalists.
Last month, authorities arrested 21 protesters and said four officers were injured outside the Broadview facility. Local authorities made the arrests.
The Illinois case is just one of several legal battles over National Guard deployments.
District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb is suing to halt the deployments of more than 2,000 guardsmen in the nation’s capital. Forty-five states have entered filings in federal court in that case, with 23 supporting the administration’s actions and 22 supporting the attorney general’s lawsuit.
More than 2,200 troops from several Republican-led states remain in Washington, although the crime emergency Trump declared in August ended a month later.
A federal judge in Oregon has permanently blocked the deployment of National Guard troops there, and all 200 troops from California were being sent home from Oregon, an official said.
A state court in Tennessee ruled in favor of Democratic officials who sued to stop the ongoing Guard deployment in Memphis, which Trump has called a replica of his crackdown on Washington, D.C.
In California, a judge in September said deployment in the Los Angeles area was illegal. By that point, just 300 of the thousands of troops sent there remained, and the judge did not order them to leave.
The Trump administration has appealed the California and Oregon rulings to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
A 32-year-old marketing professional now based in Los Angeles, Kimmy initially became drawn to the case after learning that Mangione is also from Maryland. “Otherwise it’s just another shooting in America,” she says. Her interest deepened, though, as the political stakes developed and potentially complicated the legal proceedings. (Erika Kirk recently wondered in a CBS appearance “how social media will impact that court case, just how it might impact mine,” referring to the similar surfeit of attention that has accompanied the assassination of her late husband, Charlie Kirk.)
Soon she was captivated by the Agnifilos themselves, and the legal strategy they were building. “The case itself is already so interesting,” Kimmy says, “but the fight to control the narrative bleeding in and out of court adds another incredibly interesting layer.” (Mangione has pleaded not guilty in this case as well as a parallel federal case.)
The Agniflos met in 1992, when they were both working in the Manhattan district’s attorney office and Karen assisted Marc on a case involving one deliveryman cutting off another’s hand with a machete amid a feud over a parking spot. Their work, together and apart, eventually took them to some of the most knotty and high-profile spots in defense law.
Former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn sits with Marc Agnifilo.Richard Drew/AFP/Getty Images.
Karen Friedman Agnifilo addresses the Mangione press corps.Bryan R. Smith/AFP/Getty Images.
When Marc’s firm represented Dominique Strauss-Kahn in his 2011 sexual assault case, Karen, still working as a prosecutor, had to recuse herself. (Prosecutors ultimately dropped criminal charges of attempted rape against Strauss-Kahn, and a civil case was settled.) 50 Cent’s recent Netflix documentary about Sean “Diddy” Combs includes footage of the mogul screaming at Marc on the phone over the state of his case, leading TMZ to describe the attorney as the “true victim in all of this.” Agnifilo was Combs’s lead attorney in his federal racketeering and sex trafficking trial, which was largely regarded as a victory for Combs after he was convicted only on lesser prostitution counts.
In Mangione, the couple has found a celebrity defendant drawing a particularly personal degree of investment from his fans, with his facial expressions and movements in court dissected for meaning in online communities. A, a London-based paralegal who asked to be identified by her first initial, co-runs an advocacy platform for Mangione called Free Luigi NYC and devotes time to breaking down the legal maneuvering in the case. She attended a day of the court proceedings this month and attested that the Agnifilos had become stars.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that cities cannot punish lawbreakers beyond what state courts would allow for the same offense, a decision that could set precedent for hundreds of municipal courts around the state.
The justices ruled that when a municipal ordinance and a state statute prohibit identical conduct, the municipal penalties for such conduct “may not exceed the corresponding state penalties for that conduct.”
By imposing more stringent penalties for the same crimes, these cities “materially impede the state’s interest in ensuring that maximum penalties for non-felony offenses are consistent and uniform across Colorado,” the opinion stated.
In 2021, on the heels of nationwide protests for racial justice, Colorado lawmakers enacted sweeping state-level reforms that significantly lowered the potential penalties for misdemeanor and petty offenses in Colorado’s state courts. But those reforms didn’t impact municipal courts, which are not part of the state judicial system.
As a result, the potential jail sentences for minor crimes in city courts now often far outpace the state’s limits, The Denver Post reported last year. The newspaper found defendants across 10 of Colorado’s largest cities served, on average, five times more jail time in municipal court — though the difference was just a matter of days.
Officers have wide leeway to choose which box to check on their summons forms, The Post found. Police departments said they didn’t have specific policies outlining how arresting officers are supposed to decide between arresting someone on municipal or state charges.
Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez delivered the opinion, and was joined by Justices Brian D. Boatright, William W. Hood III, Richard L. Gabriel, Carlos A. Samour Jr. and Maria E. Berkenkotter. Justice Melissa Hart, who announced her retirement last week after being on leave since October, did not participate.
The ruling centered on two cases involving low-level prosecutions in Westminster and Aurora municipal courts in which the alleged offenders faced significantly more jail time after being charged in city court than they would have if charged in state court.
In 2022, Aleah Camp was charged with stealing less than $300 worth of goods from a Westminster store. The officer, by checking a single box on a criminal summons, sent the case to municipal court — where Camp faced a potential jail sentence 36 times longer and a fine almost nine times higher — 364 days and $2,650 vs. 10 days and $300 — than what would be allowed under state law.
In the other case, Danielle Simons was charged in 2023 with motor vehicle trespass in Aurora Municipal Court. As a result of the officer’s decision to pursue municipal rather than state charges, Simons similarly faced up to 364 days in jail and a $2,650 fine. If she had been charged with the same offense in state court, the maximum penalty would have been 120 days in jail and a $750 fine.
Simons’ and Camp’s attorneys argued the significant sentencing discrepancies in their cases violated their clients’ rights of equal protection under the Colorado Constitution.
The Supreme Court did not address the equal protection argument, instead ruling that the city ordinances are preempted by state law. The cities argued that, under home-rule provisions, they are allowed to create their own sentencing policies.
But the justices wrote that the court has consistently held that the regulation of non-felony criminal offenses is a matter of mixed local and statewide concern.
Municipalities can still punish offenders beyond the state’s sentencing caps when there is no identical state offense, the court ruled. However, when cities regulate conduct for which there exists an identical state offense, they cannot exceed the state’s cap.
Ashley Cordero, Simons’ attorney, said her client “feels relieved” with Monday’s ruling.
Rebecca Wallace, policy director at the Colorado Freedom Fund, an organization that helps people pay bail, called the decision a “victory for impoverished Coloradans.”
“We have long said that it defies logic, fairness and the law that municipal courts can send people to jail for poverty offenses with 30 times longer sentences than they could get in state court,” she said. “Today, the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously agreed.”
Aurora’s city attorney, Pete Schulte, fired back in a statement Monday, saying the Supreme Court’s decision “begs the question of whether Colorado municipalities should continue to prosecute criminal offenses in their municipal courts when they become de facto extensions of state and county courts at a cost to municipal taxpayers without reimbursement.”
Westminster officials said they are reviewing the order, but otherwise did not offer comment.
State lawmakers this year attempted to resolve the sentence disparity issue through legislation. The measure, House Bill 1147, passed both the House and the Senate before Gov. Jared Polis vetoed the bill. The governor, in his veto letter, expressed concern that the legislation would have restricted municipalities’ ability to react to local crime trends in a manner they see fit.
He also said “it would be informative” to see how the Supreme Court rules before changing the law.
Sen. Mike Weissman, an Aurora Democrat and one of the legislators who sponsored the bill, hopes Monday’s ruling changes Polis’ calculus as lawmakers discuss another municipal court bill this session.
“We’re going to continue to talk to the governor and his team,” Weissman said. “Hopefully, he’d support codifying the results of today’s decision from the court.”
Immigrant activist Jeanette Vizguerra is on the precipice of being released from an immigration detention facility after an immigration judge ruled Sunday that she can post bail.
Denver immigration judge Brea Burgie set Vizguerra’s bail at $5,000, but she included no other restrictions, like an ankle monitor. Her family intends to immediately post the bond, her legal team said in a statement. She likely won’t be released for at least 24 to 48 hours, said Jenn Piper, the program co-director for the American Friends Service Committee of Denver. Still, Burgie’s ruling means Vizguerra, a mother of four children, will be home by Christmas.
The order comes two days after Vizguerra’s legal team argued that the activist, who was born in Mexico and has spent most of the last 28 years in the United States, posed no flight risk and was not a danger to the community. She has been detained in the Aurora detention center since March, when she was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at her work.
Vizguerra’s legal team said Sunday that Burgie found that Vizguerra “does not pose a danger to the community,” nor did she pose a flight risk, given her “strong family and community ties” and her previous compliance with court proceedings.
Vizguerra’s bail hearing took place Friday because of the order of a separate federal judge last week. When her family posts bail, Vizguerra will be released while her broader legal efforts to stay in the country — and fight her deportation — play out in both immigartion and federal court.
An activist who received national attention when she sheltered in a Denver church for years during President Donald Trump’s first term, Vizguerra was named one of TIME’s most influential people in 2017. Earlier this year and while in detention, she won a humanitarian award from the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organization.
Vizguerra’s supporters have held regular vigils for her outside of the detention center for months.
In the clip, posted to the Into The Weeds podcast YouTube channel, Gypsy seems to be talking to Nick ahead of his court date after being arrested. Now, this was before Dee Dee’s murder — this was a completely separate incident where Nick was arrested for allegedly watching porn and masturbating in McDonald’s for NINE hours back in 2013. He was charged with disorderly conduct and carrying a concealed weapon because he had a pocket knife on him.
But what raised eyebrows was in this video, Gypsy seems to be very knowledgeable about the court system and cross-state laws. She says in the clip:
“I want you to know that I don’t think that the judge will make you serve jail time for something as simple as carrying a pocket knife over here in redneck territory. That’s just normal. You don’t go to jail for that, but different state, different laws.”
She also gave her then-boyfriend some advice ahead of his hearing in the video:
“Remember to be respectable to the judge and remember your manners and do as they say, because … they’re a bit of a higher position than you are. And they have your fate in their hands.”
In a second video, Gypsy reiterated herself — but also told him about how “blue” would help him show his innocence in court:
“I want you to be respectful to the judge, like I was saying. I’d suggest wearing blue still, because it is a calming color. And you wanna show your innocence. And that’s really important.”
You can see a compilation of the videos for yourself (below):
Commenters once again had a lot to say — in fact, they were shocked with Gypsy’s intellect. In the past, she’s talked about how she was so sheltered she didn’t even really know how to work a smartphone when she left prison. Fans said:
“‘Wear blue because it’s a calming color – innocent’ more proof of how calculated and conniving she is”
“Listen to her talking about how to manipulate a judge by what colors to wear to purvey innocence.”
“To think, this information was under the care of law enforcement this entire time & she walked after 8 years”
“Yet she couldn’t call the police”
“And also: the fact that she said she needed to hide the computer – here she is filming and on fb in the living room all the time…”
“And she says she had no education….unbelievable…all you have to do is listen to her to realize there is nothing slow about her as far as her language, of course she’s nuts but it’s interesting how intelligent she is.”
“Helping to manipulate the judge ‘for the very first time’”
“what if she told him to do the McDonalds incident”
“She knows more than me & she was isolated ???”
“she didnt want him in jail bc them he couldn’t do the crime she wanted him to do”
Wild stuff…
In response to the videos, Gypsy has reminded folks about all the positive work she’s done on herself in the last few years after getting out of a toxic situation.
Immigration authorities must provide detained activist Jeanette Vizguerra with a bail hearing in the next week, a federal judge ruled Wednesday in Denver.
The order offers an avenue for potential temporary release for Vizguerra, an immigrant without proper legal status who has spent nine months in federal immigration detention.
The activist was arrested in March and has been fighting efforts by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain and deport her ever since. The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Nina Wang requires that authorities give Vizguerra the opportunity to seek a temporary release before an immigration judge in Aurora’s detention center by Christmas Eve.
Her hearing is currently set for Friday morning, according to one of her attorneys, Laura Lichter.
If granted bail, Vizguerra would be released from detention while her immigration case continues to wind its way through the courts. Because Vizguerra is fighting her deportation both in federal court and in immigration court, it will likely be “many months or even years” before her case is fully resolved, Wang said.
The Mexico-born activist has lived in the United States for more than 30 years and has repeatedly fought attempts to deport her, though she accepted a voluntary departure in 2011. During the first Trump administration, she sought shelter in a Denver church and was named by TIME as one of the most influential people of 2017. She left the church’s sanctuary and was given reprieves by ICE.
But early in Trump’s second term, she was arrested in March in what her attorneys have argued was an intentional effort to detain and deport her because of advocacy that’s protected by the First Amendment. Her detention was celebrated by ICE on social media, and one agent allegedly told her, “We finally got you.”
In Wednesday’s order, Wang said Vizguerra’s allegations that she was targeted specifically because of her speech raised “serious due process concerns.”
Nick Reiner made his first court appearance Wednesday in Los Angeles on two counts of first-degree murder in the killing of his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and his wife Michele Singer Reiner, while the couple’s other two children made their first public statement on their crushing loss.Nick Reiner, 32, did not enter a plea as he appeared from behind glass in a custody area in the large Los Angeles courtroom where newly charged defendants are arraigned. He was in shackles and wearing a blue, padded suicide prevention smock used in jail.His arraignment was postponed until Jan. 7 at his attorney’s request. He spoke only to say “yes, your honor” to agree to the date. He is being held without bail.Jake and Romy Reiner talk about their ‘unimaginable pain’His older brother Jake Reiner and younger sister Romy Reiner released their statement through a family spokesperson.“Words cannot even begin to describe the unimaginable pain we are experiencing every moment of the day,” they said. “The horrific and devastating loss of our parents, Rob and Michele Reiner, is something that no one should ever experience. They weren’t just our parents; they were our best friends.”The brother and sister said they are “grateful for the outpouring of condolences, kindness, and support we have received not only from family and friends but people from all walks of life. We now ask for respect and privacy, for speculation to be tempered with compassion and humanity, and for our parents to be remembered for the incredible lives they lived and the love they gave.”Medical Examiner says ‘sharp force injuries’ killed coupleAlso Wednesday, the LA County Medical Examiner listed the primary cause of death for both Rob and Michele Reiner as “multiple sharp force injuries” as the office released its investigators’ initial findings.The office said more investigation is needed before further details will be revealed, but the bodies can now be released to the family.The cause of death was consistent with police describing the couple as having stab wounds.Nick Reiner’s attorney urges cautionAfter the court hearing, Nick Reiner’s attorney, Alan Jackson, called the case “a devastating tragedy that has befallen the Reiner family.” He said the proceedings will be very complex and asked that the circumstances be met “not with a rush to judgment, not with jumping to conclusions.”Jackson declined to answer shouted questions from dozens of reporters surrounding him and has not addressed the guilt or innocence of his client.Nick Reiner was charged Tuesday with killing Rob Reiner, 78, and Michele Singer Reiner, 70.They were killed sometime in the early morning hours of Sunday, the District Attorney’s Office said. They were found dead late in the afternoon in their home in the upscale Brentwood neighborhood on the west side of Los Angeles, authorities said.Nick Reiner did not resist when he was arrested hours later in the Exposition Park area near the University of Southern California, about 14 miles from the crime scene, police said.The two counts of first-degree murder come with special circumstances of multiple murders and an allegation that the defendant used a dangerous weapon, a knife. The additions could mean a greater sentence.District Attorney Nathan Hochman said at a Tuesday news conference that his office has not yet decided whether to seek the death penalty.Meg Ryan and others remember the ReinersRob Reiner was the Emmy-winning star of the sitcom “All in the Family” who went on to direct films including “Stand by Me,” “The Princess Bride,” and “When Harry Met Sally …,” whose star Meg Ryan paid tribute to the Reiners on Wednesday.“Thank you, Rob and Michelle, for the way you believe in true love, in fairy tales, and in laughter. Thank you for your faith in the best in people, and for your profound love of our country,” Ryan said in an Instagram post. “I have to believe that their story will not end with this impossible tragedy.”Rob Reiner met Michele Singer Reiner during the shooting of the classic rom-com, and he said the meeting inspired him to change the film to have a happy ending.Ryan’s co-star Billy Crystal, a close friend of Rob Reiner for decades, was part of a group that also included Albert Brooks, Martin Short and Larry David that released a statement mourning and celebrating the couple Tuesday night.“They were a special force together — dynamic, unselfish and inspiring,” the statement said. “We were their friends, and we will miss them forever.”Rob Reiner has another daughter, Tracy Reiner, from his first marriage, to actor-director Penny Marshall.The lawyers on the Reiner caseNick Reiner’s attorney Jackson is a high-profile defense attorney and former LA County prosecutor who represented Harvey Weinstein at his Los Angeles trial and Karen Read at her intensely followed trials in Massachusetts. He was a central figure in the HBO documentary on the Read case.On the other side will be Deputy District Attorney Habib Balian, whose recent cases included the Menendez brothers’ attempt at resentencing and the trial of Robert Durst.Authorities have not said anything about a motive for the killings and would give few details when asked at the news conference.
LOS ANGELES —
Nick Reiner made his first court appearance Wednesday in Los Angeles on two counts of first-degree murder in the killing of his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and his wife Michele Singer Reiner, while the couple’s other two children made their first public statement on their crushing loss.
Nick Reiner, 32, did not enter a plea as he appeared from behind glass in a custody area in the large Los Angeles courtroom where newly charged defendants are arraigned. He was in shackles and wearing a blue, padded suicide prevention smock used in jail.
His arraignment was postponed until Jan. 7 at his attorney’s request. He spoke only to say “yes, your honor” to agree to the date. He is being held without bail.
Jake and Romy Reiner talk about their ‘unimaginable pain’
His older brother Jake Reiner and younger sister Romy Reiner released their statement through a family spokesperson.
“Words cannot even begin to describe the unimaginable pain we are experiencing every moment of the day,” they said. “The horrific and devastating loss of our parents, Rob and Michele Reiner, is something that no one should ever experience. They weren’t just our parents; they were our best friends.”
The brother and sister said they are “grateful for the outpouring of condolences, kindness, and support we have received not only from family and friends but people from all walks of life. We now ask for respect and privacy, for speculation to be tempered with compassion and humanity, and for our parents to be remembered for the incredible lives they lived and the love they gave.”
Medical Examiner says ‘sharp force injuries’ killed couple
Also Wednesday, the LA County Medical Examiner listed the primary cause of death for both Rob and Michele Reiner as “multiple sharp force injuries” as the office released its investigators’ initial findings.
The office said more investigation is needed before further details will be revealed, but the bodies can now be released to the family.
The cause of death was consistent with police describing the couple as having stab wounds.
Nick Reiner’s attorney urges caution
After the court hearing, Nick Reiner’s attorney, Alan Jackson, called the case “a devastating tragedy that has befallen the Reiner family.” He said the proceedings will be very complex and asked that the circumstances be met “not with a rush to judgment, not with jumping to conclusions.”
Jackson declined to answer shouted questions from dozens of reporters surrounding him and has not addressed the guilt or innocence of his client.
Nick Reiner was charged Tuesday with killing Rob Reiner, 78, and Michele Singer Reiner, 70.
They were killed sometime in the early morning hours of Sunday, the District Attorney’s Office said. They were found dead late in the afternoon in their home in the upscale Brentwood neighborhood on the west side of Los Angeles, authorities said.
Nick Reiner did not resist when he was arrested hours later in the Exposition Park area near the University of Southern California, about 14 miles from the crime scene, police said.
The two counts of first-degree murder come with special circumstances of multiple murders and an allegation that the defendant used a dangerous weapon, a knife. The additions could mean a greater sentence.
District Attorney Nathan Hochman said at a Tuesday news conference that his office has not yet decided whether to seek the death penalty.
Meg Ryan and others remember the Reiners
Rob Reiner was the Emmy-winning star of the sitcom “All in the Family” who went on to direct films including “Stand by Me,” “The Princess Bride,” and “When Harry Met Sally …,” whose star Meg Ryan paid tribute to the Reiners on Wednesday.
“Thank you, Rob and Michelle, for the way you believe in true love, in fairy tales, and in laughter. Thank you for your faith in the best in people, and for your profound love of our country,” Ryan said in an Instagram post. “I have to believe that their story will not end with this impossible tragedy.”
Rob Reiner met Michele Singer Reiner during the shooting of the classic rom-com, and he said the meeting inspired him to change the film to have a happy ending.
Ryan’s co-star Billy Crystal, a close friend of Rob Reiner for decades, was part of a group that also included Albert Brooks, Martin Short and Larry David that released a statement mourning and celebrating the couple Tuesday night.
“They were a special force together — dynamic, unselfish and inspiring,” the statement said. “We were their friends, and we will miss them forever.”
Rob Reiner has another daughter, Tracy Reiner, from his first marriage, to actor-director Penny Marshall.
The lawyers on the Reiner case
Nick Reiner’s attorney Jackson is a high-profile defense attorney and former LA County prosecutor who represented Harvey Weinstein at his Los Angeles trial and Karen Read at her intensely followed trials in Massachusetts. He was a central figure in the HBO documentary on the Read case.
On the other side will be Deputy District Attorney Habib Balian, whose recent cases included the Menendez brothers’ attempt at resentencing and the trial of Robert Durst.
Authorities have not said anything about a motive for the killings and would give few details when asked at the news conference.
Rob Reiner’s son Nick Reiner is expected to make his first court appearance Wednesday on two counts of first-degree murder in the killing of his parents.Nick Reiner, 32, was charged Tuesday with killing the 78-year-old actor and director Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman announced at a news conference with LA Police Chief Jim McDonnell.“Their loss is beyond tragic and we will commit ourselves to bringing their murderer to justice,” Hochman said.Along with the two counts of first-degree murder, prosecutors added special circumstances of multiple murders and a special allegation that the defendant used a dangerous weapon, a knife. The additions could mean a greater sentence.Hochman said his office has not yet decided whether to seek the death penalty in the case.“This case is heartbreaking and deeply personal, not only for the Reiner family and their loved ones but for our entire city,” McDonnell said.The announcement came two days after the couple was found dead from apparent stab wounds in their home in the upscale Brentwood neighborhood on the west side of Los Angeles. Nick Reiner did not resist when he was arrested hours later in the Exposition Park area near the University of Southern California, about 14 miles (22.5 kilometers) from the crime scene, police said.Rob Reiner was the Emmy-winning star of the sitcom “All in the Family” who went on to direct films including “When Harry Met Sally…” and “The Princess Bride.” He was an outspoken liberal activist for decades. Michele Singer Reiner was a photographer, movie producer and advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. They had been married for 36 years.Several of those closest to them, including actors Billy Crystal, Albert Brooks, Martin Short and Larry David, released a statement mourning and celebrating the couple on Tuesday night.“They were a special force together — dynamic, unselfish and inspiring,” the statement said. “We were their friends, and we will miss them forever.”Nick Reiner had been scheduled to make an initial court appearance earlier Tuesday, but his attorney Alan Jackson said he was not brought from the jail to the courthouse for medical reasons and the appearance was postponed.At Wednesday’s hearing, Reiner may enter a plea, a judge may schedule an arraignment for later or the same issue that prevented him from coming to court Tuesday could cause further postponement. He is being held without bail.Jackson is a high-profile defense attorney and former LA County prosecutor who represented Harvey Weinstein at his Los Angeles trial and Karen Read at her intensely followed trials in Massachusetts. He was a central figure in the HBO documentary on the Read case.On the other side will be Deputy District Attorney Habib Balian, whose recent cases included the Menendez brothers’ attempt at resentencing and the trial of Robert Durst.Authorities haven’t said anything about a motive for the killings and would give few details when asked at the news conference.
Nick Reiner, 32, was charged Tuesday with killing the 78-year-old actor and director Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman announced at a news conference with LA Police Chief Jim McDonnell.
“Their loss is beyond tragic and we will commit ourselves to bringing their murderer to justice,” Hochman said.
Along with the two counts of first-degree murder, prosecutors added special circumstances of multiple murders and a special allegation that the defendant used a dangerous weapon, a knife. The additions could mean a greater sentence.
Hochman said his office has not yet decided whether to seek the death penalty in the case.
“This case is heartbreaking and deeply personal, not only for the Reiner family and their loved ones but for our entire city,” McDonnell said.
The announcement came two days after the couple was found dead from apparent stab wounds in their home in the upscale Brentwood neighborhood on the west side of Los Angeles. Nick Reiner did not resist when he was arrested hours later in the Exposition Park area near the University of Southern California, about 14 miles (22.5 kilometers) from the crime scene, police said.
Rob Reiner was the Emmy-winning star of the sitcom “All in the Family” who went on to direct films including “When Harry Met Sally…” and “The Princess Bride.” He was an outspoken liberal activist for decades. Michele Singer Reiner was a photographer, movie producer and advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. They had been married for 36 years.
Several of those closest to them, including actors Billy Crystal, Albert Brooks, Martin Short and Larry David, released a statement mourning and celebrating the couple on Tuesday night.
“They were a special force together — dynamic, unselfish and inspiring,” the statement said. “We were their friends, and we will miss them forever.”
Nick Reiner had been scheduled to make an initial court appearance earlier Tuesday, but his attorney Alan Jackson said he was not brought from the jail to the courthouse for medical reasons and the appearance was postponed.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Reiner may enter a plea, a judge may schedule an arraignment for later or the same issue that prevented him from coming to court Tuesday could cause further postponement. He is being held without bail.
Jackson is a high-profile defense attorney and former LA County prosecutor who represented Harvey Weinstein at his Los Angeles trial and Karen Read at her intensely followed trials in Massachusetts. He was a central figure in the HBO documentary on the Read case.
On the other side will be Deputy District Attorney Habib Balian, whose recent cases included the Menendez brothers’ attempt at resentencing and the trial of Robert Durst.
Authorities haven’t said anything about a motive for the killings and would give few details when asked at the news conference.
Yergan Jones, CEO of American Sound Design and AEE Productions, was sentenced Monday, Dec. 15, 2025, in Miami federal court to one year and nine months in prison for his role in the fraud scheme of former Jackson Health Foundation executive.
Facebook
READ MORE
Betrayal of Trust
Former Jackson Health Foundation COO Charmaine Gatlin pled guilty to bilking millions in charity funds. A look at the investigation.
Expand All
An Atlanta businessman who paid millions in bribes to an executive for the charity arm of Miami-Dade County’s public hospital system was sentenced Monday to one year and nine months in prison — thanks to his cooperation with federal authorities early on in the fraud investigation.
Yergan Jones, 63, president of an audiovisual company, pleaded guilty in August in Miami federal court to conspiring to commit fraud with Jackson Health Foundation’s former chief operating officer, Charmaine Gatlin. She approved 53 wire payments totaling $2.1 million to Jones, even though he provided no services to the Foundation between 2019 and 2024.
In return, Jones kicked back 74 payments via wires and checks totaling about $1.1 million to Gatlin, 52, who used the money to buy luxury Italian and French handbags, vacations in the Caribbean and a membership at an upscale golf club near her home in Weston.
During the sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Becerra chastised the out-of-towner for conspiring with Gatlin to steal millions of dollars from the nonprofit charity benefitting the county-subsidized Jackson Health System, as she stressed the importance of its healthcare services, especially for Miami-Dade low-income patients.
Where did the money go?
“In terms of fraud, this is as serious as it gets,” Becerra told Jones. “This is absolute rank, gross, disgusting greed.”
At one point, the judge asked Jones’ defense attorney what the defendant did with the $1 million he kept in the billing scheme directed by Gatlin. “Where is that money?” Becerra asked.
“Some of it went into his business,” attorney Hector Flores told her. “Some of it went into everyday life,” including a leased Porsche.
In addition to prison time, the judge ordered Jones to pay about $2.1 million in restitution to Jackson Health System, along with imposing a $1.1 million forfeiture judgment that represents his portion of the ill-gotten funds stolen from the Foundation.
According to court records, Jones plans to make a payment this month of $783,000 — funds that will go toward repaying the Foundation that raises money for Jackson Health System. Jones said he plans to sell his Atlanta business and other assets to pay back more of the stolen money.
“I will continue to work until every dollar is repaid,” Jones told the judge, as he apologized for his crime. “I stand before you today fully accountable.”
Becerra reluctantly allowed Jones to surrender on Feb. 21 to prison authorities in Atlanta, mainly because the judge said she wanted him to sell his audiovisual business and repay as much money as possible to the Foundation and Jackson. She almost made him surrender at the end of January, but allowed him a few extra weeks of freedom after he said that his daughter will be getting married in mid-February.
The judge reached her decision on Jones’ prison term after federal prosecutor Elizabeth Young recommended that he receive a one-third reduction on his originally recommended sentence of 2-1/2 years because of his early assistance to the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami.
While Young called his crime “an obviously egregious fraud scheme” because the Foundation and Jackson received no services for his theft, she noted that Jones is at least trying to back the stolen funds.
She also pointed out that his co-conspirator, Gatlin, the leader of the billing scheme, committed a far worse crime, including stealing $55,000 in charity funds meant for burn victims at Jackson.
Stealing funds meant for Jackson patients
At Monday’s sentencing nearing, the Foundation’s chief executive officer, Flavia Llizo, said Gatlin and Jones “didn’t just steal money. They stole hope.”
“They chose to steal from people they never met — patients fighting for their lives, families in crisis, neighbors who depend on Jackson for hope and healing,” Llizo told the judge.
By comparison, last Wednesday, Gatlin was given a harsher sentence of six years and eight months by U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom. She pleaded guilty in September to a wire-fraud conspiracy charge accusing her of stealing about $7 million from her employer, involving Jones and several other vendors.
An unidentified man, left, escorts Arthur Gatlin and his wife Charmaine Gatlin, right, the former chief operating officer of the Jackson Health Foundation, for sentencing at Wilkie D. Ferguson Jr. Courthouse on Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2025, in Miami, Florida. Carl Juste cjuste@miamiherald.com
Gatlin, who was immediately sent to prison, must repay that sum to the Foundation — though she was only able to pledge $30,000 borrowed from a family member. She also faces a $1 million forfeiture judgment that accounts for the illicit funds Jones kicked back to her.
Gatlin came to know Jones when they worked on charitable projects for a mentorship organization in Atlanta, where she had worked before she was hired by the Foundation in 2014.
Before Jackson officials learned of her theft of the Foundation’s funds in the fall of 2024, Gatlin was making about $300,000 as the Foundation’s chief operating officer and was being considered for its top job as chief executive officer.
Terminated in November
But in late October, she was put on paid administrative leave while an internal investigation “related to potential misconduct” got underway. In early November, she was “terminated for cause” by the Foundation’s chairman. Her termination letter, obtained by the Miami Herald, did not elaborate.
Jackson officials alerted the FBI and federal prosecutors.
In May, Gatlin was arrested on charges of fleecing $3.6 million from her former employer, fabricating fake invoices from vendors — including Jones — and receiving kickbacks from them. Her defrauding of the Foundation, however, surpassed that figure as FBI agents dug deeper into her theft. Her billing scheme also extended well beyond Miami, according to an indictment and other court records.
In his plea, Jones admitted that he submitted dozens of invoices to Gatlin through his company, American Sound Design, that were for “audiovisual services that did not occur” at Jackson Health System or the Foundation.
Instead, those services were provided by his company to a civic organization in Atlanta, according to court records. The Herald confirmed that the organization is 100 Black Men of America, with chapters nationwide including South Florida. While at the Foundation, Gatlin continued to work with them as a part-time volunteer while Jones was a contractor for the organization.
“At times, Charmaine Gatlin instructed [Jones] how to falsify invoices to the Foundation for services ASD did not provide,” according to a factual statement filed with his plea agreement signed by him, defense lawyer Hector Flores and the prosecutor, Young.
For example, on Jan. 7, 2024, Jones emailed Gatlin’s personal email with a draft invoice extending audiovisual equipment at the Jackson “Holiday Parties” for two “additional days” for a total of $50,172.50, the statement says. The following day, Gatlin responded: “Get [the bill] to $58,477. When you email it over ask for the status of the payment.”
On Jan. 16, Gatlin wired that same amount to the bank account of Jones’ company, ASD, which did not provide the invoiced audiovisual services at Jackson or the Foundation, according to the statement. Two days later, Jones wired a kickback of about $25,000 to Gatilin’s personal bank account — then, Jones made a $20,000 payment on his American Express card using the Jackson funds.
In other instances, “to conceal the kickbacks, Charmaine Gatlin sent [Jones] false invoices making it appear as though she was consulting for” his company, American Sound Design, the statement says.
On Jan. 31, 2021, for example, Gatlin emailed Jones the following false invoices: Jackson Rehab Ribbon Cutting ($29,625); MTI 50th Anniversary/Jungle Island ($21,625); Virtual Conference Jackson Residents ($26,215), and Jackson Covid Media Village ($43,562.50).
“These payments were kickbacks to Charmaine Gatlin for paying [American Sound Design] via the Foundation,” the statement says.
At Jones’ sentencing on Monday, Becerra zeroed on how long he collaborated with Gatlin in her billing scheme over six years. She discounted the words of a few of his supporters who appeared in court, including a pastor from his church in Atlanta.
“It went to line your pockets so you could live a life better than the life you were living,” Becerra told Jones. “I cannot understand how you ended up doing this except for greed.”
This story was originally published December 15, 2025 at 6:45 PM.
Dozens of California National Guard troops under President Trump’s command apparently slipped out of Los Angeles under cover of darkness early Sunday morning, ahead of an appellate court’s order to be gone by noon Monday.
Administration officials would not immediately confirm whether the troops had decamped. But video taken outside the Roybal Federal Building downtown just after midnight on Sunday and reviewed by The Times shows a large tactical truck and four white passenger vans leaving the facility, which has been patrolled by armed soldiers since June.
About 300 California troops remain under federal control, some 100 of whom were still active in Los Angeles as of last week, court records show.
“There were more than usual, and all of them left — there was not a single one that stayed,” said protester Rosa Martinez, who has demonstrated outside the federal building for months and was there Sunday.
Troops were spotted briefly later that day, but had not been seen again as of Monday afternoon, Martinez said.
The development that forced the troops to leave was part of a sprawling legal fight for control of federalized soldiers nationwide that remains ongoing.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order late Friday but softened an even more stringent edict from a lower court judge last week that would have forced the president to relinquish command of the state’s forces. Trump federalized thousands of California National Guard troops in June to quell unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.
“For the first time in six months, there will be no military deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “While this decision is not final, it is a gratifying and hard-fought step in the right direction.”
The ruling Friday came from the same three-judge panel that handed the president one of his most sweeping second-term victories this summer, after it found that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law.
That precedent set a “great level of deference” as the standard of review for deployments that have since mushroomed across the country, circumscribing debate even in courts where it is not legally binding.
But the so-called Newsom standard — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit — has drawn intense scrutiny and increasingly public rebuke in recent weeks, even as the Trump administration argues it affords the administration new and greater powers.
In October, the 7th Circuit — the appellate court that covers Illinois — found the president’s claims had “insufficient evidence,” upholding a block on a troop deployment in and around Chicago.
“Even applying great deference to the administration’s view of the facts … there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws,” the panel wrote.
That ruling is now under review at the Supreme Court.
In November, the 9th Circuit vacated its earlier decision allowing Trump’s Oregon federalization to go forward amid claims the Justice Department misrepresented important facts in its filings. That case is under review by a larger panel of the appellate division, with a decision expected early next year.
Despite mounting pressure, Justice Department lawyers have doubled down on their claims of near-total power, arguing that federalized troops remain under the president’s command in perpetuity, and that courts have no role in reviewing their deployment.
When Judge Mark J. Bennett asked the Department of Justice whether federalized troops could “stay called up forever” under the government’s reading of the statute at a hearing in October, the answer was an unequivocal yes.
“There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.
For now, the fate of 300 federalized California soldiers remains in limbo, though troops are currently barred by court orders from deployment in California and Oregon.
Times staff writers David Zahniser and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.
In a windowless room at Denver police headquarters on a recent Thursday afternoon, Officer Chris Velarde activated a police drone to investigate a potential car break-in.
Officer Chris Velarde flies a drone and monitors live footage from its camera from Denver Police Department headquarters on Thursday, Dec. 4, 2025. (Photo by Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post)
Several floors above, the drone launched from the roof and flew itself — essentially on autopilot — to the site of the call, reported as a man breaking into a car with a crowbar near the Santa Fe Arts District.
The drone whizzed along, 200 feet up, in a straight line across blocks, buildings and streets during the roughly mile-long flight from police headquarters at 1331 Cherokee St. Velarde didn’t pick up the Xbox video-game controller that manually pilots the drone until it reached the area of the call. Then he took control and trolled the block for the supposed break-in, watching live video footage transmitted from the drone on his computer monitor as he flew.
After a few moments, Velarde spotted two people jiggering the passenger-side window of a vehicle. He zoomed in on the pair, and on the car’s license plate. He ran the plate to see whether the vehicle was stolen; it was not. The people on the street didn’t look up. They didn’t seem to know a police drone was hovering above them, that they were being recorded and watched a mile away by officers and a reporter.
Two more people joined the pair at the vehicle’s window and Velarde made the call — this didn’t look like a vehicle break-in. More likely, someone had just locked their keys in their car. He cleared the call with 911 dispatchers and told them there was no need to send an officer to the scene. Then he sent the drone back to headquarters; it flew itself to the rooftop dock, landing autonomously on a platform stamped with bright blue-and-yellow QR codes.
The Denver Police Department began testing drones as first responders — that is, sending them out on 911 calls — in mid-October after signing up for two free pilot programs from rival drone companies Skydio and Flock Safety. The effort has raised concerns among privacy advocates, Denver politicians and the city’s police oversight group, particularly regarding the department’s contract with Flock, the company behind the city’s controversial network of automated license-plate readers.
Police see the drones as a way to speed up call-response times and provide more information to officers as they arrive on scene, improving, they say, both public safety and officer safety. If a drone arrives at a scene before officers, and the drone pilot can tell police on the ground that the man with the knife actually put down the weapon before the officers arrived, that helps everyone, police said.
“The more knowledge, information and intelligence that we can provide our officers on the ground, the better methods that they can use to respond to certain situations, which may cause them to not escalate unnecessarily,” said Cmdr. Clifford Barnes, who heads the department’s Cyber Bureau.
Critics say the eyes in the sky raise serious privacy concerns both with how the drones and the data they collect are used now, and with how they might be used in the future as the technology rapidly changes. They worry that the drones could create a citywide surveillance network with few legal guardrails, that the footage they collect will be used to train private companies’ AI algorithms or that police will misuse emerging AI capabilities, like facial recognition.
“When it comes to the decision of, are we going to use this thing that could potentially increase public safety, that will erode privacy rights — no one should get to decide the public is willing to give away our constitutional rights, except the people,” said Anaya Robinson, public policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado. “And when law enforcement makes that decision for us, it becomes extremely problematic.”
Almost 300 drone flights in 55 days
So far, only Skydio drones have flown as first responders over Denver.
Denver police signed a zero-dollar contract with Flock — without public announcement — in August for a year-long pilot of drones as first responders, but the company has yet to set up its autonomous aircraft. Skydio, on the other hand, moved quickly to get drones in the air after Denver police in October signed a contract to test up to four of the company’s drones during a free six-month pilot.
Skydio’s drones can reach about a 2-mile radius around the Denver police headquarters. The company advertises a top speed of 45 mph with 40 minutes of flight time; Denver pilots have found the drones average around 28 mph and around 25 minutes of battery life per flight.
From the first flight on Oct. 15 through Tuesday, two Skydio drones flew 297 times, according to data provided by Denver police in response to an open records request. Most of those flights — 199 — were to answer calls for service; another 82 were training flights, according to the data.
Skydio drones also surveilled events — a function police call “event overwatch” — seven times, the police data shows. Overwatch might include flying over a protest to track where the demonstrators are headed and alert officers on the ground for traffic control, Barnes said. (The police data showed that all seven overwatch flights occurred on Oct. 18, the day of Denver’s “No Kings” rally.)
The drones flew to 29 calls about a person with a weapon, 21 disturbances, 20 assaults in progress, a dozen suspicious occurrences and 11 hold-up alarms, according to data from Denver’s 911 dispatch records. The drones also flew to 39 other types of calls, including reports of prowlers, fights, burglaries, domestic violence and suicidal people.
The most common outcome for a call was that the officers were unable to locate an incident or the suspect was gone by the time the drone or police officers arrived, the records show. Across about 200 calls for service that included drone responses, police made 22 arrests and issued one citation, the dispatch data shows.
When responding to calls for service, the drones reached the scene before patrol officers 88% of the time, the police data shows. A drone was the sole police response in 80 of 199 calls for service, or about 40% of the time.
Barnes said answering calls with solely a drone improves police efficiency.
“If an officer on the ground doesn’t need to respond, and the drone pilot is comfortable with cancelling the other officers coming, we can assign those officers to more important, more pressing matters, so call-response times come down,” he said.
That approach raises questions about what the drones (which are equipped with three different cameras and a thermal imager) can and can’t see, and how officers are making decisions about call responses without actually speaking to anyone at the scene, the ACLU’s Robinson said.
“Humans have bias,” he said. Drone pilots might be more inclined to send officers to a potential car break-in in a low-income neighborhood and more likely not to in a higher-income neighborhood, he said. Or they might miss something from above that they could have seen at street level.
Officer Chris Velarde flies a drone and monitors live footage from its camera from Denver Police Department headquarters on Thursday, Dec. 4, 2025. (Photo by Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post)
But minimizing in-person police interactions with residents, particularly in over-policed neighborhoods, can also be a positive, said Julia Richman, chair of Denver’s Citizen Oversight Board, which provides civilian oversight of the police department.
“Where my head goes is the other outcome, where they roll up on those people who are trying to get keys out of the car and then they shoot them,” she said. “Actually, (the drone-only response) seems like a really good outcome.”
The oversight group has talked with Denver police over the last two years about developing its drone program, she said. The department created a seven-page policy to guide their use; the policy aims to ensure “civil rights and reasonable expectations of privacy are a key component of any decision made to deploy” a drone.
But Richman said she was surprised by aspects of the police department’s pilot programs despite the ongoing conversations with department leadership.
“What was never discussed, not once, was the idea of a third party running those drones or those drones being autonomous,” she said, referring to the drone companies. “What has changed with this latest pilot is the key features and key aspects that would create public concern had never been discussed with us.”
Both Flock and Skydio advertise autonomous features powered by artificial intelligence. Skydio uses AI for its autonomous flight paths, obstacle avoidance and tracking people and cars.
Flock, which also offers autonomous flight, advertises its drones as integrating with its automated license-plate readers. The license-plate readers — there are more than 100 around Denver — automatically photograph every car that passes by them. If a license plate is stolen or involved in a crime, the license-plate readers alert police within seconds.
Police Chief Ron Thomas and Mayor Mike Johnston defended the surveillance network as an invaluable crime-solving tool this year against mounting public discontent around how much data the machines collected and how that data was used — particularly around sharing information with the federal government for the purposes of immigration enforcement.
That privacy debate around Flock’s license plate readers unfolded in communities across Colorado and nationwide this year. In Loveland, the police department for a time allowed U.S. Border Patrol agents to access its Flock cameras before blocking that access. In Longmont, councilmembers voted Wednesday to look for alternatives to replace the 20 Flock license plate readers in that city.
When Denver City Council members, some driven by privacy concerns, voted against continuing Flock’s license-plate readers in May, Johnston extended the surveillance anyway through a free five-month contract extension with Flock in October that did not require approval from the council. Against that backdrop, Denver police quietly signed on for Flock’s drone pilot in August.
Barnes said the police department will not use any license-plate reader capabilities available on Flock drones. Such a feature would constitute “random surveillance,” which is prohibited under the department’s drone policy. The drones never fly without an officer’s direct involvement, he added.
The blue 2-mile-radius line seen on a computer screen shows the range of Denver police Skydio drones flown from Denver Police headquarters. (Photo by Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post)
The policy also prohibits drones from filming anywhere a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy unless police have a warrant, and says officers should take “reasonable precautions … to avoid inadvertently recording or transmitting images of areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
Denver police do receive search warrants to fly drones for particular operations outside of the drones-as-first-responder program. In October, a Denver police detective sought and received a warrant to fly a drone over a shooting suspect’s home in Cherry Hills Village to check whether a truck involved in the shooting was parked at the wooded property.
The warrant noted that when driving home from anywhere outside Cherry Hills Village, the suspect could not reach his house without passing by Flock license-plate readers, and that photos from those license-plate readers suggested the truck was at the property.
Denver Councilwoman Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez and Councilman Kevin Flynn both told The Post they were not aware of the police department’s Skydio drone pilot before hearing about it from the newspaper, even though they are both on the city’s Surveillance Technology Task Force. The new group began meeting in August largely to consider Flock license-plate readers, as well as other types of surveillance technology, Gonzales-Gutierrez said.
“We haven’t talked about it in the task force, and the charge of our work in the task force is to come up with those guardrails that need to be put in place for these types of technology being utilized by law enforcement,” she said. “I feel like they just keep moving on without us being able to complete our work.”
Police don’t need permission from the City Council to carry out the pilot programs, Gonzales-Gutierrez said, but she was disappointed by the lack of communication and collaboration from the department.
Flynn sees the potential of police drones, particularly in speeding up officer response times, which can sometimes be dismal in the far-flung areas of his southwestern district.
“If a drone can get there to a 911 call and it can help an officer at headquarters assess the scene before a staffed car could get there, I would love that,” he said.
But he wants to be sure they are used in a way that respects residents’ rights. He would not support using the drones for general patrolling or surveillance, he said.
“This pilot is an excellent opportunity to test all of those boundaries and see if there are ways to operate a system that can be very useful for public safety without crossing boundaries,” he said.”…And maybe we don’t keep using them. That is the point of a pilot.”
‘These are flying cops’
The Skydio drones film from the moment they are launched until they drop in to land.
When the drone is on its way to a call — flying at the 200-foot altitude limit set by the Federal Aviation Administration — its cameras remain pointed at the horizon. In Denver’s denser neighborhoods, the Skydio drones at that height flew among buildings, sometimes at eye-level with balconies, offices and apartment windows, according to video of four flights obtained by The Post through an open records request.
“What if someone is in their apartment unit in one of these giant buildings and they’re changing, and they have their window open because they’re way up high and they don’t think anyone is watching them?” Gonzales-Gutierrez said. “That is crazy.”
The drones buzzed over rooftop decks, balconies and elevated apartment complex pools, the videos show. On one trip, a drone flew past the Colorado State Capitol Building, recording three people on a balcony on the tower under the building’s golden dome. Another time, the drone pilot zoomed in on a license plate so tightly that the car’s small, decorative “LOVE” decal was clearly visible.
Flynn noted that a 200-foot altitude would put the drones well above most of the homes in his less-dense district, and that people on their porches or balconies aren’t somewhere private.
“If someone is out on a balcony, sitting there reading a book… generally speaking, if you are out in public there’s no expectation of privacy,” he said.
The Skydio drones recorded about 54 hours of footage in the first eight weeks of their operation, according to data provided by the police department. Police leadership opted to have the drones’ cameras on and recording whenever the drone is in flight to boost transparency about how the drones are being used, Barnes said.
“It makes sense to keep the camera rolling,” Barnes said. “Then, if there’s an allegation, we just make sure that footage is recorded and treated like digital evidence, uploaded to the evidence management platform so it could be reviewed as necessary. We’re just trying to make sure we establish that balance, being as transparent as possible.”
Drone footage unrelated to criminal investigations is automatically deleted after 60 days, he said. While it’s retained, it’s stored in an evidence system that keeps a record of anyone who looks at it. The drone unit’s sergeant, Brent Kohls, also audits the flight reports monthly. (Footage used in criminal investigations will be on the same retention schedule as body-worn camera footage, police said.)
Kohls noted it would be unusual for the drone footage to be viewed only by the pilot. The feed is often displayed on the wall of the police department’s Real-Time Crime Center as it comes in.
ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the organization’s speech, privacy and technology project, would rather see police keep the recording off while flying a drone to a call, even if the camera is still livestreaming to police headquarters. In that scenario, a drone pilot might still see a woman tanning topless on her rooftop pool deck, he said, but the government wouldn’t then keep a recording of that privacy violation, amplifying it further.
“The thing we are really worried about is police start deploying drones as first responders for the majority of their calls for service and suddenly you have this crisscrossing network of surveillance all over the city,” Freed Wessler said. “You have the potential for a pervasive record of what everyone is doing all the time.”
Kohls said an officer flying a drone who spotted a different crime occurring while en route to another call would stop to report and respond to that secondary crime, just like an officer would on the ground.
“Absolutely, if an officer sees a crime happening, they’re going to get on the radio, alert dispatch to what they’re observing,” Kohls said. “Hopefully, if they have a few minutes of battery time left still, they can extend their time and circle or overwatch on that scene to provide hopefully life-saving radio traffic, whatever information they need to relay to dispatch to get other officers heading, or the fire department heading that way.”
State and federal laws have not yet caught up to how police are using drones, Freed Wessler said. The Fourth Amendment has what’s known as the plain-view exception, which allows police officers who are lawfully in a place to take action if they see evidence of a crime happening in plain sight.
“The problem here is we are not talking about police doing a thing we would normally expect them to do,” Freed Wessler said. “We are talking about police taking advantage of a new technology that gives them a totally new power to fly at virtually no expense over any part of the city at any time of day and see a whole bunch of stuff happening.”
A Denver police drone lands on its docking station on the roof of Denver Police headquarters in Denver, on Thursday, Dec. 4, 2025. (Photo by Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post)
Police have broad leeway to watch suspects without first getting a search warrant — like by peering through a fence or climbing the steps of a nearby building to look into a yard. But that’s different from using a subtle video camera to record a person 24/7 for months, the justices concluded.
So far, that’s the closest ruling in Colorado on the issue of drone surveillance, Freed Wessler said. Robinson, the policy director at the ACLU of Colorado, said lawmakers should act to regulate police drone use — either at the state or local level.
“These are flying cops,” said Beryl Lipton, senior investigative researcher at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit focused on digital privacy. “That is another one of those slippery slopes.”
Aside from the legality of surveillance, another question is how the drone footage and flight data is used by the drone companies, Lipton said.
“We live in a time where all these AI-fueled companies have a real drive to integrate AI into everything, and they’re really hungry for new data,” she said. “And we have law enforcement helping to feed these companies in a way they don’t really understand.”
Under its current agreement with Denver police, Skydio doesn’t use drone footage to train its algorithm or improve its product. Flock spells out in its contract that the company can “collect, analyze and anonymize” drone footage, then use that anonymized footage to train its “machine learning algorithms,” and enhance its services.
Lipton added that technology is moving fast — Axon, a company that powers many police departments’ body-worn cameras — this month started testing facial recognition on its cameras to automatically alert a police officer if a person they’re encountering has a warrant out for their arrest.
Prisons are experimenting with “movement analysis” to automatically flag a person’s movements as potentially aggressive before the person perpetrates violence, she said.
“We are technologically at a place where it would not be hard for a drone to fly over an area and basically serve as a license-plate reader for humans,” Lipton said. “… Some of this analysis is just not being done because it is not publicly palatable yet. But it is not like it is technologically difficult for some of these companies.”
A federal judge ordered Friday that U.S. immigration officials could not detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia, hours after his release from immigration detention.Abrego Garcia was appearing Friday morning for a scheduled appointment at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office, some 14 hours after he was released from detention on a judge’s orders. His lawyers asked the judge to block authorities from detaining him again.Officials cannot re-detain him until the court conducts a hearing on the motion for the temporary restraining order, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland said. She wrote that Abrego Garcia is likely to succeed on the merits of any further request for relief from ICE detention.“For the public to have any faith in the orderly administration of justice, the Court’s narrowly crafted remedy cannot be so quickly and easily upended without further briefing and consideration,” she wrote.Abrego Garcia became a flashpoint of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown earlier this year when he was wrongly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador. He was last taken into custody in August during a similar check-in.Abrego Garcia on Friday stopped at a news conference outside the building, escorted by a group of supporters chanting “We are all Kilmar!”“I stand before you a free man and I want you to remember me this way, with my head held up high,” Abrego Garcia said through a translator. “I come here today with so much hope and I thank God who has been with me since the start with my family.”He urged people to keep fighting.“I stand here today with my head held high and I will continue to fight and stand firm against all of the injustices this government has done upon me,” Abrego Garcia said. “Regardless of this administration, I believe this is a country of laws and I believe that this injustice will come to an end.”After Abrego Garcia spoke, he went through security at the field office, escorted by supporters.The agency freed him just before 5 p.m. on Thursday in response to a ruling from Xinis, who wrote federal authorities detained him after his return to the United States without any legal basis.Mistakenly deported and then returnedAbrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen with an American wife and child who has lived in Maryland for years. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to his home country, where he faces danger from a gang that targeted his family.While he was allowed to live and work in the U.S. under ICE supervision, he was not given residency status. Earlier this year, he was mistakenly deported and held in a notoriously brutal Salvadoran prison despite having no criminal record.Facing mounting public pressure and a court order, Trump’s Republican administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, but only after issuing an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges in Tennessee. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges and asked a federal judge there to dismiss them.A lawsuit to block removal from the USThe 2019 settlement found he had a “well founded fear” of danger in El Salvador if he was deported there. So instead ICE has been seeking to deport him to a series of African countries. Abrego Garcia has sued, claiming the Trump administration is illegally using the removal process to punish him for the public embarrassment caused by his deportation.In her order releasing Abrego Garcia, Xinis wrote that federal authorities “did not just stonewall” the court, “They affirmatively misled the tribunal.” Xinis also rejected the government’s argument that she lacked jurisdiction to intervene on a final removal order for Abrego Garcia, because she found no final order had been filed.ICE freed Abrego Garcia from Moshannon Valley Processing Center, about 115 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, on Thursday just before the deadline Xinis gave the government to provide an update on Abrego Garcia’s release.He returned home to Maryland a few hours later.Immigration check-inCheck-ins are how ICE keeps track of some people who are released by the government to pursue asylum or other immigration cases as they make their way through a backlogged court system. The appointments were once routine but many people have been detained at their check-ins since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term.Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said he’s prepared to defend his client against further deportation efforts.“The government still has plenty of tools in their toolbox, plenty of tricks up their sleeve,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said, adding he fully expects the government to again take steps to deport his client. “We’re going to be there to fight to make sure there is a fair trial.”The Department of Homeland Security sharply criticized Xinis’ order and vowed to appeal, calling the ruling “naked judicial activism” by a judge appointed during the Obama administration.“This order lacks any valid legal basis, and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” said Tricia McLaughlin, the department’s assistant secretary.Sandoval-Moshenberg said the judge made it clear that the government can’t detain someone indefinitely without legal authority and that his client “has endured more than anyone should ever have to.”Abrego Garcia has also applied for asylum in the U.S. in immigration court.Charges in TennesseeAbrego Garcia was hit with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling charges when the U.S. government brought him back from El Salvador. Prosecutors alleged he accepted money to transport within the United States people who were in the country illegally.The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was eventually allowed to continue driving with only a warning.A Department of Homeland Security agent testified at an earlier hearing that he did not begin investigating the traffic stop until after the U.S. Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.
BALTIMORE —
A federal judge ordered Friday that U.S. immigration officials could not detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia, hours after his release from immigration detention.
Abrego Garcia was appearing Friday morning for a scheduled appointment at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office, some 14 hours after he was released from detention on a judge’s orders. His lawyers asked the judge to block authorities from detaining him again.
Officials cannot re-detain him until the court conducts a hearing on the motion for the temporary restraining order, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland said. She wrote that Abrego Garcia is likely to succeed on the merits of any further request for relief from ICE detention.
“For the public to have any faith in the orderly administration of justice, the Court’s narrowly crafted remedy cannot be so quickly and easily upended without further briefing and consideration,” she wrote.
Abrego Garcia became a flashpoint of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown earlier this year when he was wrongly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador. He was last taken into custody in August during a similar check-in.
Abrego Garcia on Friday stopped at a news conference outside the building, escorted by a group of supporters chanting “We are all Kilmar!”
“I stand before you a free man and I want you to remember me this way, with my head held up high,” Abrego Garcia said through a translator. “I come here today with so much hope and I thank God who has been with me since the start with my family.”
He urged people to keep fighting.
“I stand here today with my head held high and I will continue to fight and stand firm against all of the injustices this government has done upon me,” Abrego Garcia said. “Regardless of this administration, I believe this is a country of laws and I believe that this injustice will come to an end.”
After Abrego Garcia spoke, he went through security at the field office, escorted by supporters.
The agency freed him just before 5 p.m. on Thursday in response to a ruling from Xinis, who wrote federal authorities detained him after his return to the United States without any legal basis.
Mistakenly deported and then returned
Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen with an American wife and child who has lived in Maryland for years. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to his home country, where he faces danger from a gang that targeted his family.
While he was allowed to live and work in the U.S. under ICE supervision, he was not given residency status. Earlier this year, he was mistakenly deported and held in a notoriously brutal Salvadoran prison despite having no criminal record.
Facing mounting public pressure and a court order, Trump’s Republican administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, but only after issuing an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges in Tennessee. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges and asked a federal judge there to dismiss them.
A lawsuit to block removal from the US
The 2019 settlement found he had a “well founded fear” of danger in El Salvador if he was deported there. So instead ICE has been seeking to deport him to a series of African countries. Abrego Garcia has sued, claiming the Trump administration is illegally using the removal process to punish him for the public embarrassment caused by his deportation.
In her order releasing Abrego Garcia, Xinis wrote that federal authorities “did not just stonewall” the court, “They affirmatively misled the tribunal.” Xinis also rejected the government’s argument that she lacked jurisdiction to intervene on a final removal order for Abrego Garcia, because she found no final order had been filed.
ICE freed Abrego Garcia from Moshannon Valley Processing Center, about 115 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, on Thursday just before the deadline Xinis gave the government to provide an update on Abrego Garcia’s release.
He returned home to Maryland a few hours later.
Immigration check-in
Check-ins are how ICE keeps track of some people who are released by the government to pursue asylum or other immigration cases as they make their way through a backlogged court system. The appointments were once routine but many people have been detained at their check-ins since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term.
Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said he’s prepared to defend his client against further deportation efforts.
“The government still has plenty of tools in their toolbox, plenty of tricks up their sleeve,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said, adding he fully expects the government to again take steps to deport his client. “We’re going to be there to fight to make sure there is a fair trial.”
The Department of Homeland Security sharply criticized Xinis’ order and vowed to appeal, calling the ruling “naked judicial activism” by a judge appointed during the Obama administration.
“This order lacks any valid legal basis, and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” said Tricia McLaughlin, the department’s assistant secretary.
Sandoval-Moshenberg said the judge made it clear that the government can’t detain someone indefinitely without legal authority and that his client “has endured more than anyone should ever have to.”
Abrego Garcia has also applied for asylum in the U.S. in immigration court.
Charges in Tennessee
Abrego Garcia was hit with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling charges when the U.S. government brought him back from El Salvador. Prosecutors alleged he accepted money to transport within the United States people who were in the country illegally.
The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was eventually allowed to continue driving with only a warning.
A Department of Homeland Security agent testified at an earlier hearing that he did not begin investigating the traffic stop until after the U.S. Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservatives signaled Tuesday they are likely to rule for Republicans and President Trump by throwing out a Watergate-era limit on campaign funding by political parties.
The court has repeatedly said campaign money is protected as free speech, and the new ruling could allow parties to support their candidate’s campaigns with help from wealthy donors.
For the second day in a row, Trump administration lawyers urged the justices to strike down a law passed by Congress. And they appeared to have the support of most of the conservatives.
The only doubt arose over the question of whether the case was flawed because no current candidate was challenging the limits.
“The parties are very much weakened,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “This court’s decisions over the years have together reduced the power of political parties, as compared to outside groups, with negative effects on our constitutional democracy.”
He was referring to rulings that upheld unlimited campaign spending by wealthy donors and so-called super PACs.
In the Citizens United case of 2010, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and four other conservatives struck down the long-standing limits on campaign spending, including by corporations and unions. They did so on the theory that such spending was “independent” of candidates and was protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment.
They said the limits on contributions to candidates were not affected. Those limits could be justified because the danger of corruption where money bought political favors. This triggered a new era of ever-larger political spending but most of it was separate from the candidates and the parties.
Last year, billionaire Elon Musk spent more than $250 million to support Donald Trump’s campaign for reelection. He did so with money spent through political action committees, not directly to Trump or his campaign.
Meanwhile the campaign funding laws limit contributions to candidates to $3,500.
Lawyers for the National Republican Senatorial Committee pointed out this trend and told the Supreme Court its decisions had “eroded” the basis for some of the remaining the 1970s limits on campaign funding.
At issue Tuesday were the limits on “coordinated party spending.” In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress added limits on campaign money that could be given to parties and used to fund their candidates. The current donation limit is $44,000, the lawyers said.
Washington attorney Noel Francisco, Trump’s solicitor general during his first term, urged the court strike down these limits on grounds they are outdated and violate the freedom of speech.
“The theory is that they’re needed to prevent an individual donor from laundering a $44,000 donation through the party to a particular candidate in exchange for official action,” he said.
If a big-money donor hopes to win a favor from a congressional candidate, the “would-be briber would be better off just giving a massive donation to the candidate’s favorite super PAC,” Francisco said.
The suit heard Tuesday was launched by then-Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and other Republican candidates, and it has continued in his role as vice president and possibly a presidential candidate in 2028.
Usually, the Justice Department defends federal laws, but in this instance, the Trump administration switched sides and joined the Republicans calling for the party spending limits to be struck down.
Precedents might have stood in the way.
In 2001, the Supreme Court had narrowly upheld these limits on the grounds that the party’s direct support was like a contribution, not independent spending. But the deputy solicitor general, Sarah Harris, told the justices Tuesday that the court’s recent decisions have “demolished” that precedent.
“Parties can’t corrupt candidates, and no evidence suggests donors launder bribes by co-opting parties’ coordinated spending with candidates,” she said.
Marc Elias, a Democratic attorney, joined the case in the support of the court limits. He said the outcome would have little to do with speech or campaign messages.
“I think we’re underselling the actual corruption” that could arise, he said. If an individual were to give $1 million to political party while that person has business matter before the House or Senate, he said, it’s plausible that could influence “a deciding or swing vote.”
The only apparent difficulty for the conservative justices arose over questions of procedure.
Washington attorney Roman Martinez was asked to defend the law, and he argued that neither Vance nor any other Republicans had legal standing to challenge the limits. Vance was not a current candidate, and he said the case should be dismissed for that reason.
Some legal observers noted that the limits on parties arose in response to evidence that huge campaign contributions to President Nixon’s reelection came from industry donors seeking government favors.
“Coordinated spending limits are one of the few remaining checks to curb the influence of wealthy special interests in our elections,” said Omar Noureldin, senior vice president for litigation at Common Cause. “If the Supreme Court dismantles them, party leaders and wealthy donors will be free to pour nearly unlimited money directly into federal campaigns, exactly the kind of corruption these rules were created to stop.”
Daniel I. Weiner, an elections law expert at the Brennan Center, said the justices were well aware of how striking down these limits could set the stage for further challenges.
“I was struck by how both sides had to acknowledge that this case has to be weighed not in isolation but as part of a decades-long push to strike down campaign finance rules,” he said. “Those other decisions have had many consequences the court itself failed to anticipate.”
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservatives sounded ready on Monday to overrule Congress and give President Trump more power to fire officials at independent agencies and commissions.
The justices heard arguments on whether Trump could fire Rebecca Slaughter, one of two Democratic appointees on the five-member Federal Trade Commission.
The case poses a clash between Congress’ power to structure the government versus the president’s “executive power.”
A ruling for Trump portends a historic shift in the federal government — away from bipartisan experts and toward more partisan control by the president.
Trump’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the court should overturn a 1935 decision that upheld independent agencies. The decision “was grievously wrong when decided. It must be overruled,” he told the court.
The court’s three liberals strongly argued against what they called a “radical change” in American government.
If the president is free to fire the leaders of independent agencies, they said, the longstanding civil service laws could be struck down as well.
It would put “massive, uncontrolled and unchecked power in the hands of the president,” Justice Elena Kagan said.
But the six conservatives said they were concerned that these agencies were exercising “executive power” that is reserved to the president.
It was not clear, however, whether the court will rule broadly to cover all independent agencies or focus narrowly on the FTC and other similar commissions.
For most of American history, Congress has created independent boards and commissions to carry out specific missions, each led by a board of experts who were appointed with a fixed term.
But the court’s current conservative majority has contended these commissions and boards are unconstitutional if their officials cannot be fired at will by a new president.
In creating such bodies, Congress often was responding to the problems of a new era.
The Interstate Commerce Commission was created in 1887 to regulate railroad rates. The FTC, the focus of the court case, was created in 1914 to investigate corporate monopolies. The year before, the Federal Reserve Board was established to supervise banks, prevent panics and regulate the money supply.
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market and the National Labor Relations Board to resolve labor disputes.
Decades later, Congress focused on safety. The National Transportation Safety Board was created to investigate aviation accidents, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission investigates products that may pose a danger. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission protects the public from nuclear hazards.
Typically, Congress gave the appointees, a mix of Republicans and Democrats, a fixed term and said they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”
Slaughter was first appointed by Trump to a Democratic seat and was reappointed by President Biden in 2023 for a seven-year term.
But conservatives often long derided these agencies and commissions as an out-of-control “administrative state,” and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he believes their independence from direct presidential control is unconstitutional.
“The President’s power to remove — and thus supervise — those who wield executive power on his behalf follows from the text” of the Constitution, he wrote last year in his opinion, which declared for the first time that a president has immunity from being prosecuted later for crimes while in office.
Roberts spoke for a 6-3 majority in setting out an extremely broad view of presidential power while limiting the authority of Congress.
The Constitution in Article I says Congress “shall have the power…to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution…all other powers vested” in the U.S. government. Article II says, “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”
The current court majority believes that the president’s executive power prevails over the power of Congress to set limits by law.
“Congress lacks authority to control the President’s ‘unrestricted power of removal’ with respect to executive officers of the United States,” Roberts wrote last year in Trump vs. United States.
Four months later, Trump won reelection and moved quickly to fire a series of Democratic appointees who had fixed terms set by Congress. Slaughter, along with several other fired appointees, sued, citing the law and her fixed term. They won before federal district judges and the U.S. Court of Appeals.
But Trump’s lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court, and the justices, by 6-3 votes, sided with the president and against the fired officials.
In September, the court said it would hear arguments in the case of Trump vs. Slaughter to decide on whether to overturn the Humphrey’s Executor decision.
At the time, conservatives applauded the move. “For far too long, Humphrey’s Executor has allowed unaccountable agencies like the FTC to wield executive power without meaningful oversight,” said Cory Andrews, general counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation.
In defense of the 1935 decision, law professors noted the court said that these independent boards were not purely executive agencies, but also had legislative and judicial duties, like adopting regulations or resolving labor disputes.
During Monday’s argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the principle of “democratic accountability” called for deferring to Congress, not the president.
“Congress decided that some matters should be handled by nonpartisan experts. They said expertise matters with respect to the economy and transportation. So having the president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists is actually is not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States,” she said.
But that argument gained no traction with Roberts and the conservatives. They said the president is elected and has the executive authority to control federal agencies.
The only apparent doubt involved the Federal Reserve Board, whose independence is prized by business. The Chamber of Commerce said the court should overrule the 1935 decision, but carve out an exception for the Federal Reserve.
Trump’s lawyer grudgingly agreed. If “an exception to the removal power exists,” he wrote in his brief in the Slaughter case, it should be “an agency-specific anomaly” limited to the Federal Reserve.
The man accused of killing three people and wounding nine others at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs a decade ago died in custody over the weekend, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Robert Dear, 67, died at 6:30 a.m. Saturday in the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, Bureau of Prisons spokesperson Randilee Giamusso said. His death was “preliminarily linked to natural causes,” Giamusso said Tuesday, and prison officials followed advanced medical orders before he died.
Dear’s death ends a decade-long — and ultimately unsuccessful — effort to convict him of crimes connected to the mass shooting. Although Dear had been in state or federal custody since the 2015 attack and confessed to carrying out the mass shooting, he was never convicted because he was always considered to be too mentally ill to go through the court process — that is, he was consistently found incompetent to stand trial.
Fourth Judicial District Attorney Michael Allen said in a statement Tuesday that the victims of the shooting were denied justice in the “evil attack.”
“All three victims and this community deserved the full measure of justice in this case, but they are now denied that possibility,” Allen said. “Their family members and loved ones have endured this horror for far too long.”
The Bureau of Prisons declined to provide any additional information about Dear’s death and officials with the Greene County Medical Examiner’s Office did not immediately return requests for more information.
Dear’s attorneys did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
Dear was accused of attacking the Planned Parenthood clinic on Nov. 27, 2015. Authorities believe he intended to wage “war” on the clinic because the staff performed abortions. He arrived armed with four SKS rifles, five handguns, two more rifles, a shotgun and more than 500 rounds of ammunition, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Twenty-seven people who were inside the clinic at the time hid until they could be rescued by law enforcement, according to prosecutors. Dear fired 198 rounds in the attack and tried to blow up propane tanks to take out law enforcement vehicles during a five-hour standoff.
A competency evaluation considers whether a criminal defendant is mentally ill or developmentally disabled, and whether that mental illness impedes the defendant’s ability to understand the court process. Rooted in the constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, competency centers on two prongs — whether defendants have a factual and rational understanding of the proceedings, and whether defendants are able to consult with their attorneys and assist in their own defenses.
Experts previously testified that Dear understood the facts and circumstances of his case but was still incompetent to proceed because he could not assist in his own defense.
Dear was known for frequent outbursts in court. During a 2019 hearing, he declared himself to be a “religious zealot” who was being prosecuted in a “political kangaroo court.” In 2021, he insisted in federal court that he was competent to stand trial, shouting, “I’m not crazy.”
In September, a federal judge started the process for Dear to be committed long-term to the mental health facility in Missouri after finding he was unlikely to be restored to competency.
The decision came nearly three years after the judge ordered that Dear be medicated against his will in 2022. Federal prosecutors believed doing so would restore him to competency.
In the end, Alex Hunter picked the day of his death.
Boulder’s longest-serving district attorney — who defined more than a quarter century of criminal justice for the region and oversaw the early years of the JonBenét Ramsey case — had exhausted all options for medical care after suffering a heart attack in mid-November.
The 89-year-old spent several days in Colorado hospitals, alert and cogent, saying goodbye to colleagues, friends and family.
Then he picked 1:30 p.m. Friday as the time for medical staff to stop the life-supporting medicines keeping him alive. He drifted off and died later that evening, a month shy of his 90th birthday, said his son, Alex “Kip” Hunter III, who is acting as a spokesman for the family.
“He was just crystalline clear,” Hunter III said Monday. “He was intentional and purposeful, gracious and elegant. …He had come to a place where he was totally at peace with the scope of his life.”
Hunter spent 28 years as Boulder County’s elected top prosecutor, serving seven consecutive terms between 1973 and 2001. He forged a community-driven, progressive, victim-focused approach to prosecution and helped shape Boulder’s reputation as a liberal enclave.
He faced intense public scrutiny in the late 1990s after 6-year-old JonBenét was killed and, in the ensuing media firestorm, he chose not to bring charges against her parents — even after a grand jury secretly returned indictments against them during his final term.
Hunter kept a picture of the young beauty queen in his office and, throughout, stood by his controversial decision in the city’s highest-profile murder case, his son said.
“He probably suffered more criticism as a result of that than any other moment in his career,” Hunter III said. “And yet he remained confident till he died that that was the right decision.”
In 1997, Hunter named JonBenét’s parents, John and Patsy, as a focus in the investigation into their daughter’s killing. More than a year later, Hunter announced that Boulder County’s grand jury had completed its work investigating the case, and that there was not sufficient evidence for charges to be filed against the Ramseys.
He was roundly criticized during the early years of the Ramsey case, featured in tabloids and The New Yorker. Some called for a special prosecutor to replace him, and a Boulder detective resigned from the case, accusing Hunter of compromising the investigation. Outsiders said Boulder needed a tough-on-crime prosecutor — decidedly not Hunter — to bring justice to JonBenét’s killer.
What Hunter kept secret in 1999 was that the grand jury had voted to indict the parents on charges of child abuse resulting in death — essentially alleging the Ramseys placed their daughter in a dangerous situation that led to her death — but that he’d declined to sign the indictments and move forward with a prosecution, believing he could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
“It was so like him to refuse the grand jury instruction,” Hunter III said. “Because he believed in his heart that it would have a negative impact on the outcome of the case.”
Over time, Hunter came to realize the Ramsey case would define his career, even if he would rather it did not. He was surprised by how it followed him even years after his retirement, Hunter III said.
“Horrible crimes happen every day, and that was a horrible crime, but it’s had legs, it’s had a life that I think often surprised Dad in particular,” Hunter III said. “I think that a lot of Dad’s 28 years as the district attorney perhaps got lost in the JonBenét Ramsey case.”
From left, Adams County Chief Deputy District Attorney Bruce Levin, Assistant Boulder County District Attorney Bill Wise, Denver Chief Deputy District Attorney Mitch Morrissey, Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter and the JonBenét Ramsey grand jury’s special prosecutor, Michael Kane, walk outside the Ramsey family’s former Boulder home on Oct. 29, 1998. (Photo by Paul Aiken/Daily Camera)
‘Doing the right thing time and time again’
Through the decades, Hunter was attuned to the Boulder community in a way few others ever were — for years, he invited cohorts of random voters into his office on Tuesday nights for candid discussions on crime and the courts, and he often made decisions and implemented policy based on what he heard in those meetings.
He was a master at reading a room and took pride in surrounding himself with good people, said Dennis Wanebo, a former prosecutor in the Boulder DA’s office.
He rarely faced any serious opposition on the ballot.
“He was there for 28 years,” said Peter Maguire, a longtime Boulder prosecutor during Hunter’s tenure. “And you don’t do that without being the consummate politician who has his finger on the pulse of the community, and by doing the right thing time and time again.”
Hunter was first elected by a narrow margin in 1973 in no small part because he promised to stop prosecuting possession of marijuana as a felony — prompting University of Colorado students to vote for him in droves, said Stan Garnett, who served as Boulder district attorney beginning in 2009.
Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter is pictured in this October 1980 photo. (Photo by Dave Buresh/The Denver Post)
Hunter was part of a wave of Democratic leadership that swept through Boulder in the 1970s. He hosted his own talk radio show for a while in the 1980s, and ran up Flagstaff Road almost every workday, leaving at 11:30 a.m. and having his secretary collect him at the top and return him to the courthouse. He was media-savvy and funny, charming and articulate.
He declared bankruptcy in the 1970s after a failed real estate venture left him $6 million in debt. Hunter married four times and had five children, one of whom, John Hunter-Haulk, died in 2010 at the age of 20 — the “heartbreak of his life,” that Hunter never fully moved past, his son said.
In the late 1970s, after regularly hearing people’s displeasure with plea agreements, Hunter declared that his office would no longer offer plea bargains in any cases, instead requiring defendants to plead guilty to the original charges or take their cases to trial.
The effort quickly failed as the court system buckled under the increased number of jury trials.
“People made fun of him at the time, other DAs mocked him for it and said it was a fool’s errand,” Wanebo said. “And maybe in hindsight it can be looked at that way. And yet there was also a very good secondary effect of that for our office, which was, we got really careful about what we charged people with.”
‘A Renaissance man’
Hunter was moveable when he made mistakes, Maguire said, though he needed to be convinced through either a reasoned or political argument — this is what the community wants — to change his stances.
“Alex was a Renaissance man,” Garnett said. “He was interested in everything. And he was very thoughtful, very kind. He was very ethical.”
Tom Kelley, a former First Amendment attorney for The Denver Post, remembered a time in which he convinced Hunter that he was legally obligated to release some criminal justice records to the newspaper. Kelley swung by the courthouse to pick the records up, and Hunter met him, leading Kelley through the courthouse’s winding back hallways in search of the records.
Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter makes his way down a hill in front of the Boulder County Justice Center, through a mass of media and bystanders, on his way to announce that the grand jury in the JonBenét Ramsey case was disbanding without taking action on Oct. 13, 1999. (Photo by Andy Cross/The Denver Post)
After he gave the documents to Kelley, Hunter immediately called up the Rocky Mountain News — The Post’s bitter rival — and let them know the records were publicly available, Kelley said.
“That was classic Alex Hunter,” he said. “He was a very decent person and he tried to give everybody a little bit of something… He had a strong political sense.”
For Hunter III, having the DA as his dad was “fantastic,” he said. His dad was regularly on the newspaper’s front page. He was “always the coolest dad in Boulder,” Hunter III remembered.
His father’s death this week feels like a mountain suddenly disappearing.
He cherishes the conversations they had as a family in the days before Hunter died.
“We were in deep conversation,” he said. “And he taught us more in that last week than you could learn in a lifetime.”
One night last December, six men met at a home in the Hollywood Hills to plot a kidnapping, prosecutors say.
Their alleged target was a 17-year-old operator of a cryptocurrency business. His abductors, authorities charge, included a felon with ties to Israeli organized crime and a former officer from the Los Angeles Police Department.
Deputy Dist. Atty. Jane Brownstone on Friday disclosed details of the alleged kidnapping at bail hearings for the alleged gangster, Gabby Ben, and the former officer, Eric Halem. Both men have pleaded not guilty to the charges against them.
Ben, 51, has twice been convicted of fraud and deported to Israel, according to court records. Along with his blue jail jumpsuit, he wore a yarmulke and towel around his neck. He shrugged and shook his head when Brownstone said he has “ties to the Israeli mafia.”
Halem, 38, who appeared in court in an orange jumpsuit, served 13 years in the LAPD. By the time he left the department in 2022, he had developed lucrative side hustles, including a luxury car rental business and an app that allowed actors to audition remotely. He was also flirting with the idea of developing a reality show about his life, former associates told The Times.
Around 2 a.m. on Dec. 28, 2024, Halem, Ben and four other men drove in two cars — Ben’s rented Lamborghini Urus and a Range Rover — to a luxury high-rise in Koreatown where the alleged victim lived, Brownstone said in court.
Dressed in dark clothing, Halem, Ben and two other men punched in the access code to the victim’s apartment, Brownstone said. The teenager wasn’t home, but the intruders found his girlfriend in a closet and restrained her with LAPD-issued handcuffs, according to the prosecutor.
“Everyone was armed,” Brownstone said. “They claimed they were from the Los Angeles Police Department and they were executing a search warrant.”
When the intended victim returned home, the men handcuffed him and demanded he open his crypto wallet on his phone and computer, Brownstone said. The teen tried to bluff by showing an empty digital wallet, she said.
The intruders threatened to shoot the teenager in the foot and waterboard him if he didn’t surrender his crypto, turning on a shower to emphasize the threat, the prosecutor said.
Only then did he provide the code to a safe that held a “hard-wired” crypto wallet stored on a thumb drive, Brownstone told the judge. The wallet contained $350,000 in crypto, she said.
Surveillance footage showed Ben, Halem and the other intruders leaving the victim’s apartment building about 25 minutes after they entered, according to the prosecutor. They did not touch the Rolex watches or stacks of cash inside the safe and scattered throughout the apartment.
Halem’s attorney, Megan Maitia, cast doubt on the “alleged motive” for the case, questioning how the young man described by authorities as a victim had accumulated so much crypto.
“How does a 17-year-old do this?” she asked.
Maitia argued it wasn’t her client who’d threatened to hurt the teenager, but a sixth, still-unidentified suspect who “everyone thought was the most dangerous.”
Brownstone told the judge that police are still searching for a sixth suspect.
Maitia asked Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Victoria Wilson to grant her client bail. Far from the high-flying, deep-pocketed wheeler-dealer he was portrayed to be, Halem, a father of two, was now broke, his lawyer said. His house was encumbered with liens and he’d sold a “prop plane” that prosecutors cited when arguing he was a risk to abscond, Maitia said.
“The bank accounts are empty,” she told Wilson.
Maitia also argued Halem was in danger in the Los Angeles County jails. “He worries he is going to be killed because he was a cop,” she said.
Wilson said she would order the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which runs the jails, to protect Halem but was not moved to grant him bail.
Nor did she approve the release of Ben. His attorney, Kellen Davis, said his client had no violent convictions and always complied with court orders “from the limited record he does have.”
Ben was convicted of orchestrating a “bust out” scheme by paying people to open bank accounts that were later used to commit fraud, court records show. He was also accused of defrauding elderly people after entering their homes disguised as an HVAC technician and secretly photographing driver’s licenses and bank statements.
Ben, who lived in Los Angeles and Miami, owned healthcare and assisted living facilities, Davis said. “They are legitimate and he’s been operating them for years,” he told Wilson.
The judge wasn’t persuaded. Wilson called the allegation that Ben and his co-defendants posed as policemen “extremely troubling,” and she said there was a chance he could cause “great bodily harm to others” if let out of jail.
Times staff writers Libor Jany and Richard Winton contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — A federal court on Tuesday blocked Texas from moving forward with its new congressional map, hastily drawn in hopes of netting up to five additional Republican seats and securing the U.S. House for the GOP in next year’s midterm elections.
The ruling is a major political blow to the Trump administration, which set off a redistricting arms race throughout the country earlier this year by encouraging Texas lawmakers to redraw the state’s congressional district boundaries mid-decade — an extraordinary move bucking traditional practice.
The three-judge federal court panel in El Paso said in a 2-1 decision that “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map,” ordering the state to revert to the maps it had drawn in 2021.
Texas’ Republican governor, Greg Abbott, who at Trump’s behest directed GOP state lawmakers to proceed with the plan, vowed on Tuesday that the state would appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.
Californians responded to Texas’ attempted move by voting on Nov. 4 to approve a new, temporary congressional map for the state, giving Democrats the opportunity to pick up five new seats.
Initially, the proposal pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, known as Prop. 50, had trigger language that would have conditioned new California maps going into effect based on whether Texas approved its new congressional districts.
But that language was stripped out last minute, raising the possibility that Democrats enter the 2026 midterm election with a distinct advantage. The language was removed because Texas had already passed its redistricting plan, making the trigger no longer needed, said Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the maps for Prop. 50.
“Our legislature eliminated the trigger because Texas had already triggered it,” Mitchell said Tuesday.
Newsom celebrated the ruling in a statement to The Times, which he also posted on the social media site X.
“Donald Trump and Greg Abbott played with fire, got burned — and democracy won,” Newsom said. “This ruling is a win for Texas, and for every American who fights for free and fair elections.”
An aide to former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who led an effort in California to enshrine nonpartisan districting practices, suggested that California’s effort could face problems going forward after it was sold to the public as a response to Texas.
“The title of the proposition said it was a response to Texas, and the voter guide mentioned Texas 13 times, so I’d imagine you will find voters who feel misled that if Texas’ gerrymander doesn’t happen, California’s still does,” said Daniel Ketchell, a spokesperson for Schwarzenegger.
The new Texas redistricting plan appears to have been instigated by a letter from Assistant Atty. Gen. for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, who threatened Texas with legal action over three “coalition districts” that she argued were unconstitutional.
Coalition districts feature multiple minority communities, none of which comprises the majority. The newly configured districts passed by Texas redrew all three, potentially “cracking” racially diverse communities while preserving white-majority districts, legal scholars said.
“I think the decision was both very smart and very careful in following the law,” Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, said of the 160-page opinion.
“These are judges who took the law seriously,” Levitt said, “and also judges who were — rightly — absolutely furious at DOJ for a letter starting the whole charade, where the legal ‘reasoning’ wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.”
While the Supreme Court’s rulings on redistricting have been sporadic, the justices have generally ruled that purely political redistricting is legal, but that racial gerrymandering is not — a more difficult line to draw in southern states where racial and political lines overlap.
In 2023, addressing a redistricting fight in Alabama over Black voter representation, the high court ruled in Allen vs. Milligan that discriminating against minority voters in gerrymandering is unconstitutional, ordering the Southern state to create a second minority-majority district.
The Justice Department is also suing California to attempt to block the use of its new maps in next year’s elections.
J. Morgan Kousser, a Caltech professor who recently testified in the ongoing case over Texas’ 2021 redistricting effort, said the potential downfall of Texas’ new map was an ironic twist for a president whose strategic goal was to give himself a leg up in the midterms.
He blamed Tuesday’s court decision — written by a Trump appointee — on the president’s gutting of legal talent at the Justice Department, arguing its legal strategy was flawed from the start.
“The California gerrymander is likely fixed in stone, because there is no evidence of ‘racial predominance’ in the California action, especially compared to the plentiful evidence of racial motives quoted carefully by the district court in Texas,” Kousser said, “and the opinion of the Texas district court is so meticulous and persuasive that the Supreme Court majority will have difficulty overturning it.”
“Purging the DOJ left no one to warn the Trump appointees that what they were about to do would likely boomerang,” Kousser added. “This is the law of unintended consequences run riot.”
Times staff writers Melody Gutierrez and Seema Mehta contributed to this report.
California is once again fighting in federal court for a Jewish family’s right to have a precious Impressionist painting returned to them by a Spanish museum nearly 90 years after it was looted by the Nazis.
The state is also defending its own authority to legally require art and other stolen treasures to be returned to other victims with ties to the state, even in disputes that stretch far beyond its borders.
The state has repeatedly weighed in on the case since the Cassirer family first filed it while living in San Diego in 2005. Last year, California passed a new law designed to bolster the legal rights of the Cassirers and other families in the state to recover valuable property stolen from them in acts of genocide or political persecution.
On Monday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office filed a motion to intervene in the Cassirer case directly in order to defend that law. The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation — which is owned by Spain and holds the Camille Pissarro masterpiece — has claimed that the law is unconstitutional and should therefore be ignored.
Bonta, in a statement to The Times, said the law is “about fairness, moral — and legal — responsibility, and doing what’s right,” and the state will defend it in court.
“There is nothing that can undo the horrors and loss experienced by individuals during the Holocaust. But there is something we can do — that California has done — to return what was stolen back to survivors and their families and bring them some measure of justice and healing,” Bonta said. “As attorney general, my job is to defend the laws of California, and I intend to do so here.”
Bonta said his office “has supported the Cassirers’ quest for justice for two decades,” and “will continue to fight with them for the rightful return of this invaluable family heirloom.”
Thaddeus J. Stauber, an attorney for the museum, did not answer questions from The Times. Bonta’s office said Stauber did not oppose its intervening in the case.
Sam Dubbin, the Cassirers’ longtime attorney, thanked Bonta’s office for “intervening in this case again to defend California’s interests in protecting the integrity of the art market and the rights of stolen-property victims.”
“California law has always provided strong protections for the victims of stolen property and stolen art in particular, which the Legislature has consistently reinforced,” Dubbin said.
Bonta’s latest move ratchets up the intrigue surrounding the 20-year-old case, which is being watched around the globe for its potential implications in the high-stakes world of looted art litigation.
The painting in question — Pissarro’s “Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon. Effect of Rain” — is estimated to be worth tens of millions of dollars. Both sides acknowledge it was stolen from Lilly Cassirer Neubauer by the Nazis in 1939, after she agreed in desperation to surrender it to a Nazi appraiser in exchange for a visa to flee Germany at the dawn of World War II.
The attention surrounding the case, and its potential to set new precedent in international law, likely makes the painting even more valuable.
After World War II, Lilly received compensation for the painting from the German government, but the family never relinquished its right to the masterpiece — which at the time was considered lost. What she was paid was a fraction of the current estimated worth.
In the decades that followed, Lilly’s grandson Claude Cassirer — who had also survived the Holocaust — moved with his family to San Diego.
In 2000, Claude made the shocking discovery that the painting was not lost to time after all, but part of a vast art collection that Spain had acquired from the late Baron Hans Heinrich von Thyssen-Bornemisza, the scion of a German industrialist family with ties to Adolf Hitler’s regime. Spain restored an early 19th century palace near the Prado Museum in Madrid in order to house the collection as the Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza.
Claude asked the museum to return the painting to his family. It refused. He sued in U.S. federal court in 2005. The case has been moving through the courts ever since.
California passed its new law in response to the 9th Circuit ruling last year that held state law at the time required it to apply an archaic Spanish law. That measure dictates that the title to stolen goods passes legitimately to a new owner over time, if that owner wasn’t aware the goods were stolen when they acquired them — which the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection has argued makes its ownership of the painting legally sound.
In September 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the new law during a small gathering with the families of Holocaust survivors at the Holocaust Museum LA. Lilly’s great-grandson and Claude’s son David Cassirer, who now lives in Colorado, was there, praising the state’s lawmakers for “taking a definitive stand in favor of the true owners of stolen art.”
In March, the Supreme Court in a brief order ruled that the 9th Circuit must reconsider its ruling in light of California’s new law.
In September, the Thyssen-Bournemisza Collection filed a motion asking the appellate court to rule in its favor once more. It put forward multiple arguments, but among them was that California’s new law was “constitutionally indefensible” and deprived the museum of its due process rights.
“Under binding Supreme Court precedent, a State may not, by legislative fiat, reopen time-barred claims and transfer property whose ownership is already vested,” the museum argued.
It said the U.S., under federal law, “does not seek to impose its property laws or the property laws of its own states on other foreign sovereigns, but rather expressly acknowledges that different legal traditions and systems must be taken into account to facilitate just and fair solutions with regard to Nazi-looted art cases.”
It said California’s law takes an “aggressive approach” that “disrupts the federal government’s efforts to maintain uniformity and amicable relations with foreign nations,” and “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of federal policy.”
David Cassirer, the lead plaintiff in the case since Claude’s death in 2010, argued the opposite in his own filing to the court.
Cassirer argued that California’s new law requires an outcome in his favor — which he said would also happen to be in line with “moral commitments made by the United States and governments worldwide, including Spain, to Nazi victims and their families.”
“It is undisputed that California substantive law mandates the award of title here to the Cassirer family, as Lilly’s heirs, of which Plaintiff David Cassirer is the last surviving member,” Cassirer’s attorneys wrote.
They wrote that California law holds that “a thief cannot convey good title to stolen works of art,” and therefore requires the return of the painting to Cassirer.
Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), who sponsored the bill in the Legislature, praised Bonta for stepping in to defend the law — which he called “part of a decades-long quest for justice and is rooted in the belief that California must stand on the right side of history.”