ReportWire

Tag: judge

  • Judge orders slavery exhibits restored at George Washington’s Philadelphia home

    [ad_1]

    PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to restore exhibits on slavery that the National Park Service had removed from the President’s House last month.

    U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe’s ruling requires the federal government to restore the site “to its physical status as of January 21, 2026,” the day before the exhibits were removed.

    The order did not set a deadline for restoration, but required the National Park Service to take steps to maintain the site and ensure the safety of the exhibits that memorialize the enslaved people who lived in George Washington’s Philadelphia home during his presidency.

    Rufe, a George W. Bush appointee, compared the Trump administration’s argument that it can unilaterally control the exhibits in national parks to the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s “1984,” a novel about a dystopian totalitarian regime.

    “This Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims — to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts,” Rufe wrote. “It does not.”

    The administration’s attempt to alter the President’s House is part of a nationwide initiative to remove content displays from national parks that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living,” under orders issued by President Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum last year. For instance, Park Service employees removed signage from the Grand Canyon about the mistreatment of Native Americans.

    Philadelphia filed a federal lawsuit against Burgum, acting National Park Service Director Jessica Bowron and their agencies the day the exhibits were dismantled.

    The federal government has the option to appeal the judge’s order. The Interior Department, National Park Service and U.S. Attorney’s Office did not immediately comment on the ruling, which fell on Presidents’ Day, a federal holiday.

    During a hearing last month, Rufe called the argument that a president could unilaterally change the exhibits displayed in national parks “horrifying” and “dangerous.” She ordered the federal government to ensure the panels’ safekeeping after an inspection and a visit to the President’s House earlier this month.

    Monday’s ruling followed an updated injunction request from the city that asked for the full restoration of the site — not merely that the exhibits be maintained safely. In response, the federal government’s brief argued that the National Park Service has discretion over the exhibits and that the city’s lawsuit should be dismissed on procedural grounds.

    The federal government also argued there could be no irreparable harm from the removal of the exhibits because they are documented online and replacement panels would cost $20,000.

    But the judge found the city met its burden.

    “If the President’s House is left dismembered throughout this dispute, so too is the history it recounts, and the City’s relationship to that history,” Rufe wrote.

    The injunction itself does not resolve the underlying lawsuit, and is in effect for the duration of the litigation.

    Avenging the Ancestors Coalition, the main advocacy organization leading the fight to protect the President’s House, was a little less than an hour into its Presidents’ Day event at the site when leaders got wind of their victory.

    Michael Coard, a leader of the Black-led advocacy group that helped develop the site before it opened in 2010, told the crowd of about 100 people gathered at the President’s House: “Thanks to you all, your presence and your activism, I have great news: We just won in federal court.”

    But the fight is not over, advocates said, with Coard expecting the Trump administration to appeal or ignore any future rulings.

    “This is a lawless administration. The people are going to have to take over to force them to do the right thing,” Coard said.

    Gutman and Roth write for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

    [ad_2]

    Abraham Gutman and Fallon Roth

    Source link

  • From burying to marrying: Funeral home director officiates wedding after judge doesn’t show

    [ad_1]

    An Iowa couple ran into a wedding day hiccup Thursday when the judge scheduled to marry them didn’t show up, but love and a quick phone call found a way.Alexis and Rean Webb planned to tie the knot at the Marshall County Courthouse at 4 p.m. on Feb. 12. It was always meant to be something intimate, where they would be surrounded by close loved ones. “We wanted something very small and low-key,” said Rean Webb. The couple, joined by their children, posed for a photo inside the courthouse.Unfortunately, just moments later, they would learn the judge they had an appointment with wasn’t going to show up, and there wasn’t a different judge available. While the no-show could have derailed their plans, the Webbs kept calm. In fact, they said they were more surprised by how quickly everything came together next.”My dad instantly jumped up, and he was like, ‘I know somebody: Jody,’” Alexis Webb said.That “somebody” was Jody Anderson. He’s a family friend and is ordained. He and his wife are also the owners and funeral directors of Anderson Funeral Homes. Anderson said he was at home when Alexis’ father called his phone. His wife woke him up to let him know who was on the line.”I rolled into the funeral home. Parking lot was full of cars. Family members. Didn’t know what I was getting myself into,” Anderson said.Still, he opened the doors to the funeral home’s chapel, welcomed the family inside, and took time to speak with the couple.”I took five to 10 minutes, met with them, discussed the importance, made sure they were both for real,” Anderson said.They were.Within 30 minutes of that first phone call, Alexis and Rean Webb were married in a ceremony the couple said turned out to be more meaningful than they expected.”It was even better than we expected because we kind of did get a real wedding in a sense. We’re in a chapel. I got to walk down the aisle with my dad. The girls got to be flower girls. My son got to be the ring bearer, and his son got to be his best man. I mean, what more could we ask for?” Alexis Webb said.For the Webbs, what began as a setback ended with a wedding they’ll never forget, and they’re grateful for Anderson.As for Anderson, helping was never a question.”It goes back to my career as a funeral director. The phone rings? I go. I mean, you don’t say no. You help people, and I think that’s what the good Lord put me on the Earth to do, is to help people, and I was just happy to help,” Anderson said.

    An Iowa couple ran into a wedding day hiccup Thursday when the judge scheduled to marry them didn’t show up, but love and a quick phone call found a way.

    Alexis and Rean Webb planned to tie the knot at the Marshall County Courthouse at 4 p.m. on Feb. 12. It was always meant to be something intimate, where they would be surrounded by close loved ones.

    “We wanted something very small and low-key,” said Rean Webb.

    The couple, joined by their children, posed for a photo inside the courthouse.

    Unfortunately, just moments later, they would learn the judge they had an appointment with wasn’t going to show up, and there wasn’t a different judge available.

    While the no-show could have derailed their plans, the Webbs kept calm. In fact, they said they were more surprised by how quickly everything came together next.

    “My dad instantly jumped up, and he was like, ‘I know somebody: Jody,’” Alexis Webb said.

    That “somebody” was Jody Anderson. He’s a family friend and is ordained. He and his wife are also the owners and funeral directors of Anderson Funeral Homes.

    Anderson said he was at home when Alexis’ father called his phone. His wife woke him up to let him know who was on the line.

    “I rolled into the funeral home. Parking lot was full of cars. Family members. Didn’t know what I was getting myself into,” Anderson said.

    Still, he opened the doors to the funeral home’s chapel, welcomed the family inside, and took time to speak with the couple.

    “I took five to 10 minutes, met with them, discussed the importance, made sure they were both for real,” Anderson said.

    They were.

    Within 30 minutes of that first phone call, Alexis and Rean Webb were married in a ceremony the couple said turned out to be more meaningful than they expected.

    “It was even better than we expected because we kind of did get a real wedding in a sense. We’re in a chapel. I got to walk down the aisle with my dad. The girls got to be flower girls. My son got to be the ring bearer, and his son got to be his best man. I mean, what more could we ask for?” Alexis Webb said.

    For the Webbs, what began as a setback ended with a wedding they’ll never forget, and they’re grateful for Anderson.

    As for Anderson, helping was never a question.

    “It goes back to my career as a funeral director. The phone rings? I go. I mean, you don’t say no. You help people, and I think that’s what the good Lord put me on the Earth to do, is to help people, and I was just happy to help,” Anderson said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge blocks Trump administration move to cut $600 million in HIV funding from states

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge on Thursday blocked a Trump administration order slashing $600 million in federal grant funding for HIV programs in California and three other states, finding merit in the states’ argument that the move was politically motivated by disagreements over unrelated state sanctuary policies.

    U.S. District Judge Manish Shah, an Obama appointee in Illinois, found that California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota were likely to succeed in arguing that President Trump and other administration officials targeted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding for termination “based on arbitrary, capricious, or unconstitutional rationales.”

    Namely, Shah wrote that while Trump administration officials said the programs were cut for breaking with CDC priorities, other “recent statements” by officials “plausibly suggest that the reason for the direction is hostility to what the federal government calls ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ or ‘sanctuary cities.’”

    Shah found that the states had shown they would “suffer irreparable harm” from the cuts, and that the public interest would not be harmed by temporarily halting them — and as a result granted the states a temporary restraining order halting the administration’s action for 14 days while the litigation continues.

    Shah wrote that while he may not have jurisdiction to block a simple grant termination, he did have jurisdiction to halt an administration directive to terminate funding based on unconstitutional grounds.

    “More factual development is necessary and it may be that the only government action at issue is termination of grants for which I have no jurisdiction to review,” Shah wrote. “But as discussed, plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that defendants issued internal guidance to terminate public-health grants for unlawful reasons; that guidance is enjoined as the parties develop a record.”

    The cuts targeted a slate of programs aimed at tracking and curtailing HIV and other disease outbreaks, including one of California’s main early-warning systems for HIV outbreaks, state and local officials said. Some were oriented toward serving the LGBTQ+ community. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office said California faced “the largest share” of the cuts.

    The White House said the cuts were to programs that “promote DEI and radical gender ideology,” while federal health officials said the programs in question did not reflect the CDC’s “priorities.”

    Bonta cheered Shah’s order in a statement, saying he and his fellow attorneys general who sued are “confident that the facts and the law favor a permanent block of these reckless and illegal funding cuts.”

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    [ad_1]

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    This 13 page document lays out DHS policy for use of force. Now these rules apply to Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and Secret Service and make it clear what protocols agents should follow before any use of force is applied. And while it’s easy to look back and replay video over and over after the fact, experts we talked to told us agents need to rely on these policies and training, especially in critical moments. Unfortunately, It, it’s for me as *** field office director, this all of this is very um upsetting. Darius Reeves, *** former ICE field office director, spent nearly 20 years with ICE and Homeland Security, *** time when he says their operations were not drawing public attention. No one had any idea about ICE. We were very professional, we were very clean, and this is. There are far too many US citizens being involved. What troubles Reeves now isn’t just the outcome of recent encounters, but whether ICE and Border Patrol are following their own use of force and de-escalation policies. When is use of force an option? If it’s an immediate Imminent threat. The National Investigative Unit reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s use of force policy alongside video from the two recent killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good and talked with experts including Reeves. DHS policy is clear officers should attempt de-escalation, issue verbal commands, reassess when resistance stops, and discontinue force once an incident is under control. Video from the encounter involving 30 seven-year-old Alex Preddy shows in the minute before the shooting, Preddy is recording from *** distance. Agents push *** woman who grabs onto Preddy. He’s then pushed. An agent pushes another woman near Preddy, who then steps in with an open hand up, then turns away from the agent as he’s sprayed with *** chemical. They continually sprayed him even when his back was to them, and then everybody piles on. Based on the video we’ve seen, in your opinion. Was deadly force used correctly on Alex Peretti? Absolutely not. The second case involving Renee Good raises *** different policy question. DHS rules place strict limits on the use of deadly force in and around vehicles. Mark Brown used to train ICE agents and explains the strict rules. The general practice was that They went away from shooting in the moving vehicles. Reeves and Brown add that incidents need to be carefully examined afterward to prevent future violations. Are we debriefing every day after, you know, to see, OK, what are we doing for our own accountability? This is *** major travesty, um. And you, you’re going to have to stick to the policy. The DHS policy states that every agent must be trained in use of force and de-escalation policies at least once *** year, and every 2 years they must conduct less than lethal force training. The policy we reviewed was last updated in 2023. Reporting in Washington, I’m national investigative correspondent John Cardinelli.

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    Updated: 10:27 AM PST Jan 31, 2026

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policiesA federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.”Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) —

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policies

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

    It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

    The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

    The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

    “Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.

    Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    [ad_1]

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    This 13 page document lays out DHS policy for use of force. Now these rules apply to Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and Secret Service and make it clear what protocols agents should follow before any use of force is applied. And while it’s easy to look back and replay video over and over after the fact, experts we talked to told us agents need to rely on these policies and training, especially in critical moments. Unfortunately, It, it’s for me as *** field office director, this all of this is very um upsetting. Darius Reeves, *** former ICE field office director, spent nearly 20 years with ICE and Homeland Security, *** time when he says their operations were not drawing public attention. No one had any idea about ICE. We were very professional, we were very clean, and this is. There are far too many US citizens being involved. What troubles Reeves now isn’t just the outcome of recent encounters, but whether ICE and Border Patrol are following their own use of force and de-escalation policies. When is use of force an option? If it’s an immediate Imminent threat. The National Investigative Unit reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s use of force policy alongside video from the two recent killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good and talked with experts including Reeves. DHS policy is clear officers should attempt de-escalation, issue verbal commands, reassess when resistance stops, and discontinue force once an incident is under control. Video from the encounter involving 30 seven-year-old Alex Preddy shows in the minute before the shooting, Preddy is recording from *** distance. Agents push *** woman who grabs onto Preddy. He’s then pushed. An agent pushes another woman near Preddy, who then steps in with an open hand up, then turns away from the agent as he’s sprayed with *** chemical. They continually sprayed him even when his back was to them, and then everybody piles on. Based on the video we’ve seen, in your opinion. Was deadly force used correctly on Alex Peretti? Absolutely not. The second case involving Renee Good raises *** different policy question. DHS rules place strict limits on the use of deadly force in and around vehicles. Mark Brown used to train ICE agents and explains the strict rules. The general practice was that They went away from shooting in the moving vehicles. Reeves and Brown add that incidents need to be carefully examined afterward to prevent future violations. Are we debriefing every day after, you know, to see, OK, what are we doing for our own accountability? This is *** major travesty, um. And you, you’re going to have to stick to the policy. The DHS policy states that every agent must be trained in use of force and de-escalation policies at least once *** year, and every 2 years they must conduct less than lethal force training. The policy we reviewed was last updated in 2023. Reporting in Washington, I’m national investigative correspondent John Cardinelli.

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    Updated: 1:27 PM EST Jan 31, 2026

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policiesA federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.”Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) —

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policies

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

    It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

    The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

    The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

    “Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.

    Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 5 arrested in connection with shooting of judge, wife in Indiana

    [ad_1]

    Five people have been arrested in connection with the Sunday shooting of a judge and his wife in Indiana, according to authorities. 

    The people taken into custody are 38-year-old Raylen Ferguson and 61-year-old Zenada Greer of Kentucky, as well as Thomas Moss, 43; Blake Smith, 32; and Amanda Milsap, 45 — all from Indiana, police said in a statement Thursday.

    The Lafayette Police Department said the arrests were made “after a coordinated, multi-state operation involving hundreds of investigative hours.” 

    Ferguson, Moss and Smith face a slew of charges including attempted murder and aggravated battery. Milsap and Greer face two charges each, including obstruction of justice.

    Tippecanoe Superior Court 2 Judge Steven Meyer and his wife, Kimberly Meyer, were shot at their home on Sunday, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush said. Steven Meyer suffered an injury to his arm and Kimberly Meyer sustained an injury to her hip, according to police. They were in stable condition. 

    Rush urged her colleagues to be vigilant after the shooting.

    “I worry about the safety of all our judges,” she wrote in a letter. “As you work to peacefully resolve more than 1 million cases a year, you must not only feel safe, you must also be safe. Any violence against a judge or a judge’s family is completely unacceptable.”

    Tippecanoe County Sheriff Robert Goldsmith told CBS News that extra security will be at the courthouse for the foreseeable future. He said they aren’t aware of any threats against the judge or others in the courthouse.

    Steven Meyer said in a statement after the shooting he was “grateful for the outpouring of support from friends, the community, court colleagues, and law enforcement.”

    “I want the community to know that I have strong faith in our judicial system,” he said. “This horrific violence will not shake my belief in the importance of peacefully resolving disputes. I remain confident we have the best judicial system in the world, and I am proud to be a part of it.”

    Kimberly Meyer said she and her husband had “great confidence” in the Lafayette Police investigation, and she thanked the agencies involved.

    “We are also incredibly grateful for the outpouring of support from the community; everyone has been so kind and compassionate,” she said in a statement. “We would especially like to thank the medical personnel who provided care and assistance to us following the incident.” 

    Adam Harrington and Tim Jacobi contributed to this report.

    In:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge, wife shot in home in Lafayette, Indiana

    [ad_1]

    A judge and his wife were shot and wounded in their home on Sunday in Lafayette, Indiana, officials said.

    The Indiana Supreme Court said Tippecanoe Superior Court 2 Judge Steven Meyer and his wife, Kim, were shot at their home, and the shooter was “purportedly still at large” as of Monday, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush said in a statement.

    Lafayette Police said they responded to the home on Mill Pond Lane on Sunday afternoon and found the two victims, who are receiving medical treatment and in stable condition. Police said Steven Meyer suffered an injury to his arm and Kim Meyer had an injury to her hip.

    “This remains an active and ongoing joint investigation” involving local and state police, the county sheriff’s office, county prosecutors and the FBI, Lafayette Police said Monday.

    Tippecanoe County Sheriff Robert Goldsmith told CBS News there will be extra security at the courthouse for the foreseeable future.  He said they aren’t aware of any threats against the judge or others in the courthouse.

    “I worry about the safety of all our judges. As you work to peacefully resolve more than 1 million cases a year, you must not only feel safe, you must also be safe. Any violence against a judge or a judge’s family is completely unacceptable,” Indiana Chief Justice Rush said. “I know you join me in praying for Steve and Kim and their speedy recovery. Meantime, please remain vigilant in your own security.”

    Lafayette Mayor Tony Roswarski said his thoughts and prayers are with the Meyer family.

    “I want to ensure the community that every available resource is being used to apprehend the individual(s) responsible for this senseless and unacceptable act of violence,” the mayor staid in a statement. “I have tremendous confidence in the Lafayette Police Department and want to thank all of the local, state, and federal agencies who are assisting in this investigation.”

    Court cases will go forward in Tippecanoe County, Indiana, where the chief judge has readied the state Supreme Court Office of Judicial Administration to assist.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge skeptical on ICE agents wearing masks in case that could have national implications

    [ad_1]

    A top Trump administration lawyer pressed a federal judge Wednesday to block a newly enacted California law that bans most law enforcement officers in the state from wearing masks, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

    Tiberius Davis, representing the U.S. Department of Justice, argued at a hearing in Los Angeles that the first-of-its-kind ban on police face coverings could unleash chaos across the country, and potentially land many ICE agents on the wrong side of the law it were allowed to take effect.

    “Why couldn’t California say every immigration officer needs to wear pink, so it’s super obvious who they are?” Davis told U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder. “The idea that all 50 states can regulate the conduct and uniforms of officers … flips the Constitution on its head.”

    The judge appeared skeptical.

    “Why can’t they perform their duties without a mask? They did that until 2025, did they not?” Snyder said. “How in the world do those who don’t mask manage to operate?”

    The administration first sued to block the new rules in November, after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the No Secret Police Act and its companion provision, the No Vigilantes Act, into law. Together, The laws bar law enforcement officers from wearing masks and compel them to display identification “while conducting law enforcement operations in the Golden State.” Both offenses would be misdemeanors.

    Federal officials have vowed to defy the new rules, saying they are unconstitutional and put agents in danger. They have also decried an exception in the law for California state peace officers, arguing the carve out is discriminatory. The California Highway Patrol is among those exempted, while city and county agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department, must comply.

    “These were clearly and purposefully targeted at the federal government,” Davis told the court Wednesday. “Federal officers face prosecution if they do not comply with California law, but California officers do not.”

    The hearing comes at a moment of acute public anger at the agency following the fatal shooting of American protester Renee Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis — rage that has latched on to masks as a symbol of perceived lawlessness and impunity.

    “It’s obvious why these laws are in the public interest,” California Department of Justice lawyer Cameron Bell told the court Wednesday. “The state has had to bear the cost of the federal government’s actions. These are very real consequences.”

    She pointed to declarations from U.S. citizens who believed they were being abducted by criminals when confronted by masked immigration agents, including incidents where local police were called to respond.

    “I later learned that my mother and sister witnessed the incident and reported to the Los Angeles Police Department that I was kidnapped,” Angeleno Andrea Velez said in one such declaration. “Because of my mother’s call, LAPD showed up to the raid.”

    The administration argues the anti-mask law would put ICE agents and other federal immigration enforcement officers at risk of doxing and chill the “zealous enforcement of the law.”

    “The laws would recklessly endanger the lives of federal agents and their family members and compromise the operational effectiveness of federal law enforcement activities,” the government said in court filings.

    A U.S. Border Patrol agent on duty Aug. 14 outside the Japanese American National Museum, where Gov. Gavin Newsom was holding a news conference in downtown Los Angeles.

    (Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

    Davis also told the court that ICE‘s current tactics were necessary in part because of laws across California and in much of the U.S. that limit police cooperation with ICE and bar immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, such as schools and courts.

    California contends its provisions are “modest” and aligned with past practice, and that the government’s evidence showing immigration enforcement would be harmed is thin.

    Bell challenged Department of Homeland Security statistics purporting to show an 8,000% increase in death threats against ICE agents and a 1,000% increase in assaults, saying the government has recently changed what qualifies as a “threat” and that agency claims have faced “significant credibility issues” in federal court.

    “Blowing a whistle to alert the community, that’s hardly something that increases threats,” Bell said.

    On the identification rule, Snyder appeared to agree.

    “One might argue that there’s serious harm to the government if agents’ anonymity is preserved,” she said.

    The fate of the mask law may hinge on the peace officer exemption.

    “Would your discrimination argument go away if the state changed legislation to apply to all officers?” Snyder asked.

    “I believe so,” Davis said.

    The ban was slated to come into force on Jan. 1, but is on hold while the case makes its way through the courts. If allowed to take effect, California would become the first state in the nation to block ICE agents and other federal law enforcement officers from concealing their identities while on duty.

    A ruling is expected as soon as this week.

    [ad_2]

    Sonja Sharp

    Source link

  • Governor Kotek Appoints New Clackamas County Judge – KXL

    [ad_1]

    Judge Kathleen Rastetter.

    SALEM, OR – On Tuesday, Governor Kotek announced her choice to fill a future vacancy on the Clackamas County Justice Court.  The governor saying in a written statement that Kathleen J. Rastetter will be appointed to fill the judicial position created by the upcoming retirement of Judge Karen Brisbin.  Rastetter’s appointment will be effective January 1, 2026.

    According to the governor, Rastetter is an experienced civil litigator and public servant for Clackamas County, where she currently is serving as a pro tem judge.  She reportedly has deep ties to the community, serving in both the legal and broader community.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Tim Lantz

    Source link

  • Federal judge issues order to prohibit immigration officials from detaining Kilmar Abrego Garcia

    [ad_1]

    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.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge overturning jury guilty verdict sparks backlash: ‘Stunned’ 

    [ad_1]

    A Minnesota judge acquitted a man on multiple charges after a jury found him guilty of aiding and abetting theft, sparking backlash from conservatives on social media.  

    Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Judge Sarah West on Thursday granted a motion for acquittal filed by Abdifatah Abdulkadir Yusuf on charges related to fraud at a company he owned, Promise Health Services LLC. West ruled that the state’s case “relied heavily on circumstantial evidence.” 

    “While the Court is troubled by the manner in which fraud was able to be perpetuated at Promise, the State’s evidence did not exclude other reasonable, rational inferences that are inconsistent with Mr. Yusuf’s guilt,” West wrote. 

    Why It Matters 

    Earlier this year, a national association of federal judges said there has been a “rise in criticism, threats and violence aimed at members of the judiciary.”

    “Specific decisions issued by judges are not formed from individual opinions, but rather are prepared against evaluation of what the ‘laws on the books’ require,” the Federal Judges Association said in a statement in March.

    What To Know 

    The judge’s ruling has been criticized by conservatives. Republican Minnesota State Representative and gubernatorial candidate Kristin Robbins told KARE that she was “stunned” by the decision. 

    “I was surprised to see the judge overturned a jury’s guilty verdict & acquit a defendant in a $7.2 million fraud case involving Medicaid,” she wrote on X. “I will be looking at ways to strengthen state law so fraud cases can be successfully prosecuted in state court.” 

    Conservative social media activist Robby Starbuck wrote on X: “Judge Sarah West didn’t just overturn a jury who convicted Abdifatah Yusuf of stealing millions from taxpayers, she didn’t even really explain why except that he could’ve not been guilty. Judges like this are destroying trust in our system. We need MAJOR change to restore trust.” 

    A representative for the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office told Newsweek: “The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office is appealing.” 

    “Judge West’s 55-page order meticulously considered the facts and faithfully applied the law. It affirms what we have maintained from the very beginning: that Abdifatah Yusuf did not commit fraud or racketeering,” Yusuf’s attorney, Ian Birrell, told Newsweek. “The Court’s Order affirms the fundamental principle that justice requires both fairness and proof. We appreciate the Court’s thorough consideration of all the proceedings and we are confident Mr. Yusuf’s innocence will be affirmed through the appeal process.” 

    Yusuf was charged with one count of racketeering and six counts of aiding and abetting theft by swindle in June 2024 in connection with fraudulent claims submitted by Promise Health Services to Medicaid for reimbursement. Prosecutors alleged that Yusuf’s fraud cost the Medicaid program more than $7.2 million. 

    The court acquitted Yusuf of racketeering on August 12 of this year. Later that day, the jury returned guilty verdicts on each remaining count. 

    West ruled that there is a “reasonable, rational inference” that Yusuf owned Promise Health Services and was involved on paper, but his brother was the one “committing the fraud and operating the business in a reckless manner without Mr. Yusuf’s knowledge or involvement.” 

    “The State simply wants to show that there is fraud at Promise, therefore Mr. Yusuf knew and intentionally aided in the same,” West wrote. “However, the State overinflates the actual fraud in their investigation and presentation, failed to provide actual circumstantial evidence tying Mr. Yusuf to his brother’s activities, and the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction for the six counts of Aiding and Abetting Theft By Swindle.” 

    What People Are Saying 

    Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Judge Sarah West, in an order: “The Court is concerned about the fraud that occurred at Promise. The way this case was presented and the failure by the State to actually connect the dots, even through clear inference from circumstantial evidence, that Mr. Yusuf knowingly assisted in the fraud is more than concerning. The trier of fact, and this Court upon review, should not be in a place of having to dig through and work to interpret the volumes of evidence to establish the State’s case.” 

    Republican Minnesota State Representative and gubernatorial candidate Kristin Robbins told KARE: “I was stunned. We want to strengthen state law so that we can get prosecutions out of these cases. Because clearly a jury thought he was guilty.” 

    What Happens Next 

    The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office said it is appealing the decision. 

    Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • In Texas case, it’s politics vs. race at the Supreme Court, with control of Congress at stake

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Texas redistricting case now before the Supreme Court turns on a question that often divides judges: Were the voting districts drawn based on politics, or race?

    The answer, likely to come in a few days, could shift five congressional seats and tip political control of the House of Representatives after next year’s midterm elections.

    Justice Samuel A. Alito, who oversees appeals from Texas, put a temporary hold on a judicial ruling that branded the newly drawn Texas voting map a “racial gerrymander.”

    The state’s lawyers asked for a decision by Monday, noting that candidates have a Dec. 8 deadline to file for election.

    They said the judges violated the so-called Purcell principle by making major changes in the election map “midway through the candidate filing period,” and that alone calls for blocking it.

    Texas Republicans have reason to be confident the court’s conservative majority will side with them.

    “We start with a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith,” Alito wrote for a 6-3 majority last year in a South Carolina case.

    That state’s Republican lawmakers had moved tens of thousands of Black voters in or out of newly drawn congressional districts and said they did so not because of their race but because they were likely to vote as Democrats.

    In 2019, the conservatives upheld partisan gerrymandering by a 5-4 vote, ruling that drawing election districts is a “political question” left to states and their lawmakers, not judges.

    All the justices — conservative and liberal — say drawing districts based on the race of the voters violates the Constitution and its ban on racial discrimination. But the conservatives say it’s hard to separate race from politics.

    They also looked poised to restrict the reach of the Voting Rights Act in a pending case from Louisiana.

    For decades, the civil rights law has sometimes required states to draw one or more districts that would give Black or Latino voters a fair chance to “elect representatives of their choice.”

    The Trump administration joined in support of Louisiana’s Republicans in October and claimed the voting rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action” that should be ended.

    If so, election law experts warned that Republican-led states across the South could erase the districts of more than a dozen Black Democrats who serve in Congress.

    The Texas mid-decade redistricting case did not look to trigger a major legal clash because the partisan motives were so obvious.

    In July, President Trump called for Texas Republicans to redraw the state map of 38 congressional districts in order to flip five seats to oust Democrats and replace them with Republicans.

    At stake was control of the closely divided House after the 2026 midterm elections.

    Gov. Greg Abbott agreed, and by the end of August, he signed into law a map with redrawn districts in and around Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth and San Antonio.

    But last week federal judges, in a 2-1 decision, blocked the new map from taking effect, ruling that it appeared to be unconstitutional.

    “The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” wrote U.S. District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown in the opening of a 160-page opinion. “To be sure, politics played a role” but “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.”

    He said the strongest evidence came from Harmeet Dhillon, the Trump administration’s top civil rights lawyer at the Justice Department. She had sent Abbott a letter on July 7 threatening legal action if the state did not dismantle four “coalition districts.”

    This term, which was unfamiliar to many, referred to districts where no racial or ethnic group had a majority. In one Houston district that was targeted, 45% of the eligible voters were Black and 25% were Latino. In a nearby district, 38% of voters were Black and 30% were Latino.

    She said the Trump administration views these as “unconstitutional racial gerrymanders,” citing a recent ruling by the conservative 5th Circuit Court.

    The Texas governor then cited these “constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice” when he called for the special session of the Legislature to redraw the state map.

    Voting rights advocates saw a violation.

    “They said their aim was to get rid of the coalition districts. And to do so, they had to draw new districts along racial lines,” said Chad Dunn, a Texas attorney and legal director of UCLA’s Voting Rights Project.

    Brown, a Trump appointee from Galveston, wrote that Dhillon was “clearly wrong” in believing these coalition districts were unconstitutional, and he said the state was wrong to rely on her advice as basis for redrawing its election map.

    He was joined by a second district judge in putting the new map on hold and requiring the state to use the 2021 map that had been drawn by the same Texas Republicans.

    The third judge on the panel was Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee on the 5th Circuit Court, and he issued an angry 104-page dissent. Much of it was devoted to attacking Brown and liberals such as 95-year-old investor and philanthropist George Soros and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    “In 37 years as a federal judge, I’ve served on hundreds of three-judge panels. This is the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed,” Smith wrote. “The main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the People of Texas.”

    The “obvious reason for the 2025 redistricting, of course, is partisan gain,” Smith wrote, adding that “Judge Brown commits grave error in concluding that the Texas Legislature is more bigoted than political.”

    Most federal cases go before a district judge, and they may be appealed first to a U.S. appeals court and then the Supreme Court.
    Election-related cases are different. A three-judge panel weighs the facts and issues a ruling, which then goes directly to the Supreme Court to be affirmed or reversed.

    Late Friday, Texas attorneys filed an emergency appeal and asked the justices to put on hold the decision by Brown.

    The first paragraph of their 40-page appeal noted that Texas is not alone in pursuing a political advantage by redrawing its election maps.

    “California is working to add more Democratic seats to its congressional delegation to offset the new Texas districts, despite Democrats already controlling 43 out of 52 of California’s congressional seats,” they said.

    They argued that the “last-minute disruption to state election procedures — and resulting candidate and voter confusion —demonstrates” the need to block the lower court ruling.

    Election law experts question that claim. “This is a problem of Texas’ own making,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

    The state opted for a fast-track, mid-decade redistricting at the behest of Trump.

    On Monday, Dunn, the Texas voting rights attorney, responded to the state’s appeal and told the justices they should deny it.

    “The election is over a year away. No one will be confused by using the map that has governed Texas’ congressional elections for the past four years,” he said.

    “The governor of Texas called a special session to dismantle districts on account of their racial composition,” he said, and the judges heard clear and detailed evidence that lawmakers did just that.

    In recent election disputes, however, the court’s conservatives have frequently invoked the Purcell principle to free states from new judicial rulings that came too close to the election.

    Granting a stay would allow Texas to use its new GOP friendly map for the 2026 election.

    The justices may then choose to hear arguments on the legal questions early next year.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Ex-LAPD officer staged police raid in $350,000 crypto heist, prosecutor says

    [ad_1]

    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.

    [ad_2]

    Matthew Ormseth

    Source link

  • That was fast: Man who accosted Ariana Grande last week is serving time already in Singapore

    [ad_1]

    The law works quickly in Singapore, where last week an Australian man with a habit of disrupting events charged at Ariana Grande after jumping a barrier at the Asian premiere of “Wicked: For Good.”

    This week, he’s already serving his sentence for the offense.

    Johnson Wen, 26, was convicted Monday of being a public nuisance and sentenced to nine days in jail, the BBC reported. Videos from the Thursday incident show Wen jumping a barricade at Universal Studios Singapore and running at Grande, then putting his arms around her neck and shoulders while jumping up and down and flashing a big smile to the cameras. He was separated from his shocked target by her co-star Cynthia Erivo and escorted off by security.

    But that wasn’t all — Wen tried a second time to jump the barricades that lined the event’s yellow carpet but was pinned down by security, the BBC said. He was arrested Friday.

    The Australian was in Singapore on a 90-day tourist visa and has been in custody since his arrest. He was sentenced Monday after the prosecution requested a week behind bars on a charge that carries up to a three-month sentence, according to Singapore’s the Straits Times.

    “Dude this is is not okay,” one commenter had written Thursday on Wen’s Instagram post showing him charging onto the carpet and grabbing Grande. “Look how badly you scared her! You put hands on her. I sincerely hope you [are] charged with something and banned from events.”

    The judge in Singapore apparently thought something similar when speaking with Wen at the trial.

    Wen has disrupted several celebrity and sporting events by running onto stages and into the middle of sporting events, including at the 2024 Olympics in Paris. “I won’t do it again, your honor,” he told the judge when asked if there was anything to mitigate his behavior, per the Straits Times.

    “Are you paying lip service or is this your intention?” the judge asked. Wen replied in the affirmative, saying he was “going to stop.”

    The judge referenced Wen’s earlier intrusions and noted that he hadn’t faced consequences previously, the Straits Times reported.

    “Perhaps you thought the same would occur here, but Mr. Wen, you are wrong,” the judge said, adding that there are always consequences to actions.

    The judge said Wen seemed “to be attention-seeking, thinking only of yourself, and not the safety of others, when committing these acts.” He said the act was premeditated and added two days to the requested sentence. It’s unclear whether Wen was also fined.

    Prosecutors had labeled him a “serial intruder” who was aiming for clout online, the BBC reported.

    Wen, who goes by “Pyjama Man” online, wrote on Instagram as he posted video of himself during the Thursday incident, “Dear Ariana Grande Thank You for letting me Jump on the Yellow Carpet with You.” Commenters did not support his enthusiasm.

    After doing promotion for “Wicked: For Good” with a number of her castmates in cities around the world, Grande did not mention what happened in Singapore when she appeared at a Q&A about the film on Saturday in Century City. On Sunday, she attended the motion picture academy’s 16th Governors Awards at the Ray Dolby Ballroom in Hollywood, where Tom Cruise was given an honorary Oscar, along with Debbie Allen, Dolly Parton and production designer Wynn Thomas.

    The U.S. premiere of “Wicked: For Good” — which also stars Jeff Goldblum as the Wizard — is planned for Monday in New York, with the movie opening domestically in wide release Thursday.

    [ad_2]

    Christie D’Zurilla

    Source link

  • Judge blocks Trump administration push to fine UCLA $1.2 billion for alleged antisemitism

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from imposing a $1.2-billion fine on UCLA along with stipulations for deep campus changes in exchange for being eligible for federal grants.

    The decision is a major win for universities that have struggled to resist President Trump’s attempt to discipline “very bad” universities that he claims have mistreated Jewish students, forcing them to pay exorbitant fines and agree to adhere to conservative standards.

    A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The preliminary injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District of California, rendered moot — for now — nearly every aspect of a more than 7,000-word settlement offer the federal government sent to the University of California in August after suspending $584 million in medical, science and energy research grants to the Los Angeles campus.

    The government said it froze the funds after finding UCLA broke the law by using race as a factor in admissions, recognizing transgender people’s gender identities, and not taking antisemitism complaints seriously during pro-Palestinian protests in 2024 — claims that UC has denied.

    The settlement proposal outlined extensive changes to push UCLA — and by extension all of UC — ideologically rightward by calling for an end to diversity-related scholarships, restrictions on foreign student enrollment, a declaration that transgender people do not exist, an end to gender-affirming healthcare for minors, the imposition of free speech limits and more.

    “The administration and its executive agencies are engaged in a concerted campaign to purge ‘woke,’ ‘left,’ and ‘socialist’ viewpoints from our country’s leading universities,” Lin wrote in her opinion. “Agency officials, as well as the president and vice president, have repeatedly and publicly announced a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding, with the goal of bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune. Universities are then presented with agreements to restore federal funding under which they must change what they teach, restrict student anonymity in protests, and endorse the administration’s view of gender, among other things. Defendants submit nothing to refute this.”

    “It is undisputed,” Lin added, “that this precise playbook is now being executed at the University of California.”

    Universities including Columbia, Brown and Cornell agreed to pay the government hundreds of millions to atone for alleged violations similar to the ones facing UCLA. The University of Pennsylvania and University of Virginia also reached agreements with the Trump administration that were focused, respectively, on ending recognition of transgender people and halting diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

    Friday’s decision, for the time being, spares the UC system from proceeding with negotiations that it reluctantly entered with the federal government to avoid further grant cuts and restrictions across the system, which receives $17.5 billion in federal funding each year. UC President James B. Milliken has said that the $1.2-billion fine would “completely devastate” UC and that the system, under fire from the Trump administration, faces “one of the gravest threats in UC’s 157-year history.”

    This is not the first time a judge rebuked the Trump administration for its higher education campaign. Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in September ordered the government to reverse billions in cuts to Harvard. But that case did not wade directly into settlement negotiations.

    Those talks with UC have proceeded slowly. In a court hearing last week, a Department of Justice lawyer said “there’s no evidence that any type of deal with the United States is going to be happening in the immediate future.” The lawyer argued that the settlement offer was only an idea that had not received UC approval.

    Because of that, he said, a lawsuit was inappropriate. Lin disagreed.

    “Plaintiffs’ harm is already very real. With every day that passes, UCLA continues to be denied the chance to win new grants, ratcheting up defendants’ pressure campaign,” she wrote. “And numerous UC faculty and staff have submitted declarations describing how defendants’ actions have already chilled speech throughout the UC system.”

    The case was brought by more a dozen faculty and staff unions and associations from across UC’s 10 campuses, who said the federal government was violating their 1st Amendment rights and constitutional right to due process. UC, which has avoided directly challenging the government in court, was not party to the suit.

    “This is not only a historic lawsuit — brought by every labor union and faculty union in the UC — but also an incredible win,” said Veena Dubal, a UC Irvine law professor and general counsel for one of the plaintiffs, the American Assn. of University Professors, which has members across UC campuses.

    Dubal called the decision “a turning point in the fight to save free speech and research in the finest public school system in the world.”

    Asked about Friday’s outcome, a spokesperson said UC “remains focused on our vital work to drive innovation, advance medical breakthroughs and strengthen the nation’s long-term competitiveness. UC remains committed to protecting the mission, governance, and academic freedom of the university.”

    Zoé Hamstead, chair of external relations and legal affairs for the Council of UC Faculty Assns., said she was “thrilled that the court has affirmed our First Amendment rights.”

    The organization is an umbrella group of faculty associations across UC campuses that sued.

    Hamstead, an associate professor of city and regional planning at UC Berkeley, said she was “deeply proud to be part of a coalition that represents the teachers, researchers, and workers of the University of California who are challenging rising authoritarianism in federal court.”

    Anna Markowitz, an associate professor in UCLA’s School of Education and Information Studies and president of the Los Angeles campus faculty association, said her chapter was “extremely pleased with this decision, which will put a pause on the current federal overreach at UC.”

    “UCLA faculty are honored to stand with this coalition, which continues to show that when faced with an administration targeting the very heart of higher education, fighting back is the only option,” Markowitz said.

    Lin’s injunction is not the final say on the case, which will proceed through the legal process as she determines whether a permanent injunction is warranted. The government also could appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as it has done for other cases, including one filed by UC researchers that restored funding from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation among other agencies.

    An appeals court hearing in that case was held Friday; a decision is pending.

    [ad_2]

    Jaweed Kaleem

    Source link

  • Miami judge under fire for text exchanges wants disciplinary charges dismissed

    [ad_1]

    Judge Bronwyn Miller of the Third District Court of Appeal

    Judge Bronwyn Miller of the Third District Court of Appeal

    Courtesy Third District Court of Appeal

    A Miami judge is asking to dismiss the formal disciplinary charges a state oversight panel brought against her after reviewing her text messages with Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle, arguing she did not attempt to “corrupt the process” but sought to “secure justice.”

    Last month, the panel found probable cause to file formal charges against Judge Bronwyn Miller, a former prosecutor and current judge on Miami’s Third District Court of Appeal. The panel cited concerns over Miller’s texts with Fernandez Rundle, her former boss, and questioned Miller’s impartiality as a judge, saying the texts “appear to be coercive.”

    READ MORE: State oversight panel finds Miami judge’s texts ‘appear to be coercive,’ questions her impartiality

    In 69-page motion to dismiss filed on Wednesday, Miller’s attorney Warren Lindsey said Miller shouldn’t be disciplined because her texts with Fernandez Rundle were speech protected by the First Amendment. The texts, the attorney said, were also “unrelated to any matter that was pending before or ever likely to come before Judge Miller, bore no nexus to her official duties, and all involved an issue of great public concern.”

    Lindsey argued in the filing that the issues raised in the texts were “of grave public importance,” and seeking to discipline Judge Miller for them is “inconsistent with fundamental constitutional considerations“ and “raises the spectre of the Orwellian state.”

    The oversight panel’s investigation focused on Miller’s hundreds of text messages to Fernandez Rundle while Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Andrea Ricker Wolfson was presiding over hearings last year for the resentencing of Corey Smith. The reputed leader of Miami’s John Doe gang, Smith had been sentenced to death for murdering four people in Liberty City in the 1990s.

    ID Photo
    ID Photo Corey Smith Florida Department of Corrections

    Prosecutors ultimately dropped the death penalty, and Smith was resentenced to 30 years in a plea deal in February after Wolfson removed two prosecutors from the case, citing misconduct. Smith’s defense attorneys accused prosecutors of coaching witnesses’ testimonies and speaking to a convicted murdered in a recorded jail call about a difficult witness.

    Miller, who years earlier had been the prosecutor in Fernandez Rundle’s office that secured Smith’s convictions and death sentence, indicated in the text messages to Fernandez Rundle she was trying to protect her reputation, which she felt was tarnished during the proceedings.

    The Miami Herald obtained Miller’s text messages with Fernandez Rundle and published them in an online article on Nov. 10, 2024. Three days later, on Nov. 13, Miller reported herself to the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, which investigates allegations of judicial misconduct.

    The commission found probable cause that Miller had misstepped. “Your communications cast reasonable doubt on your capacity to act impartially as a judge, undermine your appearance of integrity and impartiality, demean the judicial office, interfere with your proper performance of judicial duties, may lead to your frequent disqualification, and appear to be coercive,” the commission said in its filing.

    The state Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether Miller will be sanctioned. If the charges are upheld, she could face penalties ranging from a reprimand to being removed from the bench.

    “Judge Miller did not attempt to overturn or overthrow justice or pervert or corrupt the process by undermining morals, allegiance, or faith. The opposite is true,” her attorney wrote in her response. “Her actions were moral, and she sought to ensure justice was served by fully cooperating in the proceedings. She was committed to exposing the false testimony and fabricated events asserted by Smith in furtherance of his motion.”

    Lindsey didn’t respond to the Herald’s request for comment as of Friday afternoon.

    In the filing, Lindsey said Miller sent the messages from her personal cellphone, intended the texts to be private and believed they were legally protected from being made public.

    “Judge Miller privately communicated with the State Attorney in her role as the former prosecutor, a current witness, a threat victim, and a concerned constituent,” the document says. “Her unique knowledge was essential to preserving the integrity of the convictions…”

    Convicted murderer and gang leader Corey Smith, center, thanks his attorney Craig Whisenhunt after he pleaded guilty to second degree murder on several charges in Courtroom 4-1 at the Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building in Miami, Florida, on Wednesday, February 5, 2025, as the State dropped the former first degree murder charges. Left to Right: Whisenhunt, Allison Miller, and Smith.
    Convicted murderer and gang leader Corey Smith, center, thanks his attorney Craig Whisenhunt after he pleaded guilty to second degree murder on several charges in Courtroom 4-1 at the Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building in Miami, Florida, on Wednesday, February 5, 2025, as the State dropped the former first degree murder charges. Left to Right: Whisenhunt, Allison Miller, and Smith. Carl Juste cjuste@miamiherald.com

    Miller, according to the filing, was “constitutionally authorized” to communicate with Fernandez Rundle about the case. She was also concerned about the danger posed by Smith’s potential release.

    “Her recollection was pivotal in dismantling the fabricated allegations of past prosecutorial misconduct, and, as the JQC is aware, her cooperation resurrected her historic safety fears,” the document says. “Smith was unrestrained and seated mere feet away from her in the courtroom when she testified. Smith had demonstrated on more than one occasion that he was capable of eliminating adverse witnesses.”

    Addressed panel’s allegations

    In her response to the allegations, Miller denied attempting to influence Fernandez Rundle — and initiating the exchanges with the State Attorney. She said the commission “fail[ed] to account” for communications Rundle Fernandez initiated on the phone and in person.

    “…Judge Miller did not assert physical, moral, or economic force or threats,” the filing says. “Expressing a view and participating in a free flow of information is not coercive…” READ MORE: Miami judge’s venomous texts come back to bite her in crumbling death penalty case

    In her motion to dismiss, Miller said she didn’t disparage Wolfson. Rather, she expressed concern that Wolfson “prematurely developed an opinion on the merits” of the Smith case.

    Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Andrea Wolfson is expected to rule on convicted killer Corey Smith’s claim that Miami-Dade prosecutors are too compromised to take part in his re-sentencing, by the end of the month.
    Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Andrea Wolfson is expected to rule on convicted killer Corey Smith’s claim that Miami-Dade prosecutors are too compromised to take part in his re-sentencing, by the end of the month. Jose A. Iglesias jiglesias@elnuevoherald.com

    Miller also said she didn’t denigrate defense attorneys but merely pointed out that prosecutors are held to a heightened ethical standard. In one of the texts, Miller took aim at Michael Von Zamft — one of the prosecutors Wolfson ousted from the Smith case. Miller pointed out that Von Zamft is a former defense attorney.

    “They play by different rules,” Miller wrote. “No defense attorney should be training [assistant state attorneys]. It should be someone who knows that prosecutors are held to higher ethics.”

    Grethel Aguila

    Miami Herald

    Grethel covers courts and the criminal justice system for the Miami Herald. She graduated from the University of Florida (Go Gators!), speaks Spanish and Arabic and loves animals, traveling, basketball and good storytelling. Grethel also attends law school part time.

    [ad_2]

    Grethel Aguila

    Source link

  • Trump admin asks Supreme Court to halt order providing full SNAP payments for November

    [ad_1]

    A federal appeals court leaves an order in place that requires President Donald Trump ‘s administration to provide full SNAP food benefits for November amid a U.S. government shutdown.The judge gave the Republican administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But the administration asked the appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund, and instead allow it to continue with planned partial SNAP payments for the month.After the appeals court declined to do so, the Trump administration quickly asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its request.The food program serves about 1 in 8 Americans, mostly with lower incomes.The court filing came even as the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in a memo to states that it’s working to make funds available Friday for full monthly SNAP benefits.Officials in at least a half-dozen states confirmed that some SNAP recipients already were issued full November payments on Friday.Which states issued SNAP payments”Food benefits are now beginning to flow back to California families,” Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.In Wisconsin, more than $104 million of monthly food benefits became available at midnight on electronic cards for about 337,000 households, a spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said. The state was able to access the federal money so quickly by submitting a request to its electronic benefit card vendor to process the SNAP payments within hours of a Thursday court order to provide full benefits.Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat, said state employees “worked through the night” to issue full November benefits “to make sure every Oregon family relying on SNAP could buy groceries” by Friday.Officials in Kansas, New Jersey and Pennsylvania also said they moved quickly to issue full SNAP benefits Friday, while other states said they expected full benefits to arrive over the weekend or early next week. Still others said they were waiting for further federal guidance.Many SNAP recipients face uncertaintyThe court wrangling prolonged weeks of uncertainty for Americans with lower incomes.An individual can receive a monthly maximum food benefit of nearly $300 and a family of four up to nearly $1,000, although many receive less than that under a formula that takes into consideration their income.For some SNAP participants, it remained unclear when they would receive their benefits.Jasmen Youngbey of Newark, New Jersey, waited in line Friday at a food pantry in the state’s largest city. As a single mom attending college, Youngbey said she relies on SNAP to help feed her 7-month-old and 4-year-old sons. But she said her account balance was at $0.”Not everybody has cash to pull out and say, ‘OK, I’m going to go and get this,’ especially with the cost of food right now,” she said.Later Friday, Youngbey said, she received her monthly SNAP benefits.Tihinna Franklin, a school bus guard who was waiting in the same line outside the United Community Corporation food pantry, said her SNAP account balance was at 9 cents and she was down to three items in her freezer. She typically relies on the roughly $290 a month in SNAP benefits to help feed her grandchildren.”If I don’t get it, I won’t be eating,” she said. “My money I get paid for, that goes to the bills, rent, electricity, personal items. That is not fair to us as mothers and caregivers.”Franklin said later Friday that she had received at least some of her normal SNAP benefits.The legal battle over SNAP takes another twistBecause of the federal government shutdown, the Trump administration originally had said SNAP benefits would not be available in November. However, two judges ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the shutdown. One of those judges was U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who ordered the full payments Thursday.In both cases, the judges ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.Thursday’s federal court order rejected the Trump administration’s decision to cover only 65% of the maximum monthly benefit, a decision that could have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.In its court filing Friday, Trump’s administration contended that Thursday’s directive to fund full SNAP benefits runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.”This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend,” the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in its request to the court.In response, attorneys for the cities and nonprofits challenging Trump’s administration said the government has plenty of available money and the court should “not allow them to further delay getting vital food assistance to individuals and families who need it now.”States are taking different approaches to food aidSome states said they stood ready to distribute SNAP money as quickly as possible.Massachusetts said SNAP recipients should receive their full November payments as soon as Saturday. New York said access to full SNAP benefits should begin by Sunday. New Hampshire said full benefits should be available by this weekend. And Connecticut said full benefits should be accessible in the next several days.Officials in North Carolina said they distributed partial SNAP payments Friday and full benefits could be available by this weekend. Officials in Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana and North Dakota also said they distributed partial November payments.Amid the federal uncertainty, Delaware’s Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer said the state used its own funds Friday to provide the first of what could be a weekly relief payment to SNAP recipients.___Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri; Bauer from Madison, Wisconsin; and Catalini from Newark, New Jersey. Associated Press writers Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Jack Dura in Bismarck, North Dakota; Susan Haigh in Norwich, Connecticut; Heather Hollingsworth in Mission, Kansas; Anthony Izaguirre in New York; Mingson Lau in Claymont, Delaware; John O’Connor, in Springfield, Illinois; Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, North Carolina; and Tassanee Vejpongsa in Philadelphia contributed to this report.

    BOSTON —

    A federal appeals court leaves an order in place that requires President Donald Trump ‘s administration to provide full SNAP food benefits for November amid a U.S. government shutdown.

    The judge gave the Republican administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But the administration asked the appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund, and instead allow it to continue with planned partial SNAP payments for the month.

    After the appeals court declined to do so, the Trump administration quickly asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its request.

    The food program serves about 1 in 8 Americans, mostly with lower incomes.

    The court filing came even as the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in a memo to states that it’s working to make funds available Friday for full monthly SNAP benefits.

    Officials in at least a half-dozen states confirmed that some SNAP recipients already were issued full November payments on Friday.

    Which states issued SNAP payments

    “Food benefits are now beginning to flow back to California families,” Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.

    In Wisconsin, more than $104 million of monthly food benefits became available at midnight on electronic cards for about 337,000 households, a spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said. The state was able to access the federal money so quickly by submitting a request to its electronic benefit card vendor to process the SNAP payments within hours of a Thursday court order to provide full benefits.

    Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat, said state employees “worked through the night” to issue full November benefits “to make sure every Oregon family relying on SNAP could buy groceries” by Friday.

    Officials in Kansas, New Jersey and Pennsylvania also said they moved quickly to issue full SNAP benefits Friday, while other states said they expected full benefits to arrive over the weekend or early next week. Still others said they were waiting for further federal guidance.

    Many SNAP recipients face uncertainty

    The court wrangling prolonged weeks of uncertainty for Americans with lower incomes.

    An individual can receive a monthly maximum food benefit of nearly $300 and a family of four up to nearly $1,000, although many receive less than that under a formula that takes into consideration their income.

    For some SNAP participants, it remained unclear when they would receive their benefits.

    Jasmen Youngbey of Newark, New Jersey, waited in line Friday at a food pantry in the state’s largest city. As a single mom attending college, Youngbey said she relies on SNAP to help feed her 7-month-old and 4-year-old sons. But she said her account balance was at $0.

    “Not everybody has cash to pull out and say, ‘OK, I’m going to go and get this,’ especially with the cost of food right now,” she said.

    Later Friday, Youngbey said, she received her monthly SNAP benefits.

    Tihinna Franklin, a school bus guard who was waiting in the same line outside the United Community Corporation food pantry, said her SNAP account balance was at 9 cents and she was down to three items in her freezer. She typically relies on the roughly $290 a month in SNAP benefits to help feed her grandchildren.

    “If I don’t get it, I won’t be eating,” she said. “My money I get paid for, that goes to the bills, rent, electricity, personal items. That is not fair to us as mothers and caregivers.”

    Franklin said later Friday that she had received at least some of her normal SNAP benefits.

    The legal battle over SNAP takes another twist

    Because of the federal government shutdown, the Trump administration originally had said SNAP benefits would not be available in November. However, two judges ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the shutdown. One of those judges was U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who ordered the full payments Thursday.

    In both cases, the judges ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

    On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

    Thursday’s federal court order rejected the Trump administration’s decision to cover only 65% of the maximum monthly benefit, a decision that could have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

    In its court filing Friday, Trump’s administration contended that Thursday’s directive to fund full SNAP benefits runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

    “This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend,” the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in its request to the court.

    In response, attorneys for the cities and nonprofits challenging Trump’s administration said the government has plenty of available money and the court should “not allow them to further delay getting vital food assistance to individuals and families who need it now.”

    States are taking different approaches to food aid

    Some states said they stood ready to distribute SNAP money as quickly as possible.

    Massachusetts said SNAP recipients should receive their full November payments as soon as Saturday. New York said access to full SNAP benefits should begin by Sunday. New Hampshire said full benefits should be available by this weekend. And Connecticut said full benefits should be accessible in the next several days.

    Officials in North Carolina said they distributed partial SNAP payments Friday and full benefits could be available by this weekend. Officials in Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana and North Dakota also said they distributed partial November payments.

    Amid the federal uncertainty, Delaware’s Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer said the state used its own funds Friday to provide the first of what could be a weekly relief payment to SNAP recipients.

    ___

    Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri; Bauer from Madison, Wisconsin; and Catalini from Newark, New Jersey. Associated Press writers Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Jack Dura in Bismarck, North Dakota; Susan Haigh in Norwich, Connecticut; Heather Hollingsworth in Mission, Kansas; Anthony Izaguirre in New York; Mingson Lau in Claymont, Delaware; John O’Connor, in Springfield, Illinois; Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, North Carolina; and Tassanee Vejpongsa in Philadelphia contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion | The ‘Human Right’ to Smoke in Prison

    [ad_1]

    If you want to see what a “living constitution” looks like, go to Europe. On Tuesday, in Vainik v. Estonia, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that four longtime prisoners in Estonia were due restitution from the state for “weight gain, sleeping problems, depression, and anxiety” caused by not being allowed to smoke in prison.

    The decision was grounded on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The text of Article 8 doesn’t mention any right to enjoy a cigarette whenever one pleases. Rather, it protects a broad “right to private life,” which the court accused Estonia of violating in the Vainik case. “The Court,” the judges wrote, “was sensitive to the context of the already limited personal autonomy of prisoners, and that the freedom for them to decide for themselves—such as whether to smoke—was all the more precious.” An odd ruling, but perhaps Europe loves its cigarettes that much?

    Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

    [ad_2]

    John Masko

    Source link

  • Internet-famous judge turns every wedding into a party

    [ad_1]

    When couples come before Dallas Judge Adam Swartz to say “I do,” it’s more than a legal ceremony — it’s a bonafide bash. Janet Shamlian has more.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge orders arrest of ex-Green Beret accused of plotting to invade Venezuela after he fails to show up in court

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge in Tampa has ordered the arrest of a former Green Beret accused of plotting to invade Venezuela in 2020 after he failed to show up to court for a hearing on whether he should be taken back into custody for violating the conditions of his pre-trial release.

    Jordan Goudreau, 49, was arrested last year on weapons smuggling charges tied to the failed coup attempt undertaken during the first Trump administration.

    He was released after a few weeks in jail when filmmaker Jen Gatien pledged her $2 million Manhattan apartment where the combat veteran was living as collateral for a bond. In testimony this week, Gatien detailed how the three-time Bronze Star recipient turned abusive, alleging he threatened to harm her and others and sent text messages saying he wouldn’t go back to jail.

    “I believe he intends one day to leave this country,” Gatien said, noting that Goudreau previously lived on a sailboat in Mexico.

    Judge Christopher Tuite issued an arrest warrant Friday after waiting 30 minutes for Goudreau to show up for the third day of the bond hearing. A probation officer said the ankle monitor Goudreau was supposed to wear was still located in the Tampa area, where Goudreau was living while undergoing equine-assisted therapy supervised by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

    “I’m at a loss,” Goudreau’s attorney Marissel Descalzo told the judge. “I have not spoken to him as to why he’s not here.”

    Documentary about Venezuela raid

    Gatien’s new documentary, “Men of War,” is a largely sympathetic look at Goudreau’s slapdash plan to train a mercenary force of Venezuelan army deserters in neighboring Colombia to carry out a cross-border raid that aimed to spark a popular rebellion and remove President Nicolas Maduro.

    The plot, exposed by The Associated Press two days before the incursion, never stood a chance against Maduro’s far superior security forces and ended with several would-be freedom fighters killed and two of Goudreau’s U.S. Special Forces buddies locked away in a Venezuelan prison.

    Former Green Beret Jordan Goudreau walks to the United States Courthouse for a bond hearing in Tampa, Fla., Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2025.

    Chris O’Meara / AP


    Since the movie’s release last month, the relationship between the two has soured and in the weeks leading up to the bond hearing the filmmaker in court filings accused Goudreau of deceit, financial coercion and threatening conduct.

    Specifically, Gatien accused Goudreau of reneging on a promise – described by prosecutors as an “undisclosed side agreement” – to pledge his sizable reserves of cash, gold coins and cryptocurrency to mitigate the filmmaker’s financial risk as his sole bond guarantor.

    She also shared with the court screenshots of angry text messages, sometimes incoherent and full of profanity, in which he claims “I’m not going back to prison” – a statement prosecutors say indicates his intention to flee.

    “I would have gotten zero if he fled,” Gatien testified. “All I got was broken promises for the past year.”

    Search for assault rifles

    Among those scheduled to testify at the hearing for the government was an Oklahoma couple which was storing some of Goudreau’s belongings, including two assault rifles an associate recently tried to retrieve in possible violation of a court order against possessing firearms while on bond.

    In a sworn affidavit, Brande and Jason Woolems explained that Goudreau had called them last month pressuring them to make false accusations against Gatien to block her from backing out of the bond.

    The couple said in their sworn statement that Goudreau asked them to sign statements that accused Gatien of misconduct.

    “When we declined, he called us ‘Judas’ and accused us of betrayal, yelling repeatedly in anger,” they said in the statement.

    Bay of Piglets

    The 2020 invasion, which came to be known as the Bay of Piglets, stands as a cautionary tale of the often amateurish way the Trump administration has pursued regime change in Venezuela.

    Those criticisms have grown stronger in recent weeks as a naval flotilla deployed by Trump has carried out multiple deadly strikes on suspected drug smuggling boats departing Venezuela and the president authorized the CIA to carry out covert actions inside the South American country.

    The United Nations human rights chief said Friday that U.S. must stop its military strikes against boats in the region  to prevent “extrajudicial killing.”

    Amid growing concern about a potential U.S. invasion, Goudreau has reemerged as a media pundit popular with Trump supporters and “radical leftist” critics alike.

    In recent interviews, Goudreau has at times lashed out at an array of purported deep-state actors – the CIA and State Department among them – that he blames for “sabotaging” his clandestine mission, which he insists was blessed with a wink from the first Trump administration.

    Many of those same actors are once again trying to derail Trump’s foreign policy agenda, he said. Meanwhile, he called Trump’s allegations that Maduro is the leader of the so-called Suns Cartel of drug-running military officials a “fabrication of the CIA.”

    “If we do invade Venezuela what’s next?” he recently told Russian state-owned RT. “The truth of the matter is the Venezuelan opposition is as ruthless and tyrannical as the Venezuelan regime under Nicolas Maduro.”

    Days after Goudreau’s failed raid, Venezuela’s government detained two other Americans on suspicion of plotting to topple Maduro’s government.

    Plot aimed to oust president

    Goudreau, who was born in Canada, said he became a believer in the cause of Venezuelan democracy after working security at a benefit concert held in Colombia to deliver humanitarian aid across the border.

    Despite a lack of Spanish, he drew close to several exiled allies of opposition leader Juan Guaidó, who the U.S. then recognized as Venezuela’s legitimate leader. Over several months, a plan was hatched to invade Venezuela with the goal of sparking a popular rebellion. As part of that effort, Goudreau signed a contract with the Guaidó team, although the two sides split months before the raid was carried out under new leadership possibly infiltrated by Maduro’s intelligence services.

    Goudreau was scheduled to go on trial in February on charges of failing to obtain an export license to ship roughly 60 AR-15 rifles to clandestine camps where would-be freedom fighters were being trained.

    According to U.S. officials, Goudreau and others “conspired to export AR-type firearms, night vision devices, laser sights and other equipment from the United States to Colombia without obtaining the required export licenses. These unlicensed exports were undertaken to carry out activities in Venezuela.”

    Two of the rifles seized in Colombia contain traces of Goudreau’s DNA, while suppressors, night-vision goggles and other equipment had serial numbers matching those purchased by Goudreau and his Melbourne, Florida-based security firm Silvercorp, according to prosecutors.

    Gatien registered a Florida production company with Goudreau in 2021 and was described in court records as his girlfriend. In testimony Gatien denied being anything more than good friends with Goudreau, who lived with her for two years while attending the New York Film Academy.

    [ad_2]

    Source link