|
|
|
Man charged with killing Minnesota lawmaker plans to plead not guilty
Court Feed News |
2025/07/17 02:06
|
A Minnesota man plans to plead not guilty to charges he killed the top Democratic leader in the state House and her husband after wounding another lawmaker and his wife, his attorney said.
Vance Boelter, 57, is due in federal court for his arraignment on Sept. 12 under an order issued late Tuesday, hours after a grand jury indicted him on six counts of murder, stalking and firearms violations. The murder charges could carry the federal death penalty.
At a news conference Tuesday, prosecutors released a rambling handwritten letter they say Boelter wrote to FBI Director Kash Patel in which he confessed to the June 14 shootings of Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark. However, the letter doesn’t make clear why he targeted the couples.
Boelter’s federal defender, Manny Atwal, said in an email that the weighty charges do not come as a surprise.
“The indictment starts the process of receiving discovery which will allow me to evaluate the case,” Atwal said Tuesday. She did not immediately comment Wednesday on any possible defense strategies.
At his last court appearance, Boelter said he was “looking forward to the facts about the 14th coming out.”
While the scheduling order set a trial date of Nov. 3, Atwal said it was “very unlikely” to happen so soon.
Investigators have already gathered a huge amount of evidence that both sides will need time to evaluate. The scheduling order acknowledges that both sides may find grounds for seeking extensions. And the potential for a death sentence adds yet another level of complexity.
The acting U.S. attorney for Minnesota, Joe Thompson, reiterated Tuesday that they consider the former House speaker’s death a “political assassination” and the wounding of Sen. John Hoffman an “attempted assassination.”
But Thompson told reporters a decision on whether to seek the death penalty “will not come for several months.” He said it will ultimately be up to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, with input from the capital case unit at the Department of Justice, local prosecutors and the victims.
Minnesota abolished its state death penalty in 1911, but the Trump administration says it intends to be aggressive in seeking capital punishment for eligible federal crimes.
Boelter’s motivations remain murky. Friends have described him as an evangelical Christian with politically conservative views who had been struggling to find work. Boelter allegedly made lists of politicians in Minnesota and other states — all or mostly Democrats — and attorneys at national law firms. In an interview published by the New York Post on Saturday, Boelter insisted the shootings had nothing to do with his opposition to abortion or his support for President Donald Trump, but he declined to elaborate on that point.
“There is little evidence showing why he turned to political violence and extremism,” Thompson said.
Prosecutors say Boelter was disguised as a police officer and driving a fake squad car early June 14 when he went to the Hoffmans’ home in the Minneapolis suburb of Champlin. He allegedly shot the senator nine times, and his wife, Yvette, eight times, but they survived.
Boelter later allegedly went to the Hortmans’ home in nearby Brooklyn Park and killed both of them. Their dog was so gravely injured that he had to be euthanized.
Investigators found Boelter’s letter to the FBI director in the car he abandoned near his rural home in Green Isle, west of Minneapolis. He surrendered the night after the shootings following what authorities have called the largest search for a suspect in Minnesota history. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trump Seeks Supreme Court Approval to End Protections for Venezuelans
Court Feed News |
2025/05/15 17:55
|
The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to strip temporary legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans, potentially exposing them to being deported.
The Justice Department asked the high court to put on hold a ruling from a federal judge in San Francisco that kept in place Temporary Protected Status for the Venezuelans that would have otherwise expired last month.
The status allows people already in the United States to live and work legally because their native countries are deemed unsafe for return due to natural disaster or civil strife.
A federal appeals court had earlier rejected the administration’s request.
President Donald Trump’s administration has moved aggressively to withdraw various protections that have allowed immigrants to remain in the country, including ending TPS for a total of 600,000 Venezuelans and 500,000 Haitians. TPS is granted in 18-month increments.
The emergency appeal to the high court came the same day a federal judge in Texas ruled illegal the administration’s efforts to deport Venezuelans under an 18th-century wartime law. The cases are not related.
The protections had been set to expire April 7, but U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ordered a pause on those plans. He found that the expiration threatened to severely disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and could cost billions in lost economic activity.
Chen, who was appointed to the bench by Democratic President Barack Obama, found the government hadn’t shown any harm caused by keeping the program alive.
But Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on behalf of the administration that Chen’s order impermissibly interferes with the administration’s power over immigration and foreign affairs.
In addition, Sauer told the justices, people affected by ending the protected status might have other legal options to try to remain in the country because the “decision to terminate TPS is not equivalent to a final removal order.”
Congress created TPS in 1990 to prevent deportations to countries suffering from natural disasters or civil strife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge bars deportations of Venezuelans from Texas under the Alien Enemies Act
Court Feed News |
2025/05/04 17:39
|
A federal judge on Thursday barred the Trump administration from deporting any Venezuelans from South Texas under an 18th-century wartime law and said President Donald Trump’s invocation of it was “unlawful.”
U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. is the first judge to rule that the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used against people who, the Republican administration claims, are gang members invading the United States. Rodriguez said he wouldn’t interfere with the government’s right to deport people in the country illegally through other means, but it could not rely on the 227-year-old law to do so.
“Neither the Court nor the parties question that the Executive Branch can direct the detention and removal of aliens who engage in criminal activity in the United States,” wrote Rodriguez, who was nominated by Trump in 2018. But, the judge said, “the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.”
In March, Trump issued a proclamation claiming that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was invading the U.S. He said he had special powers to deport immigrants, identified by his administration as gang members, without the usual court proceedings.
“The Court concludes that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful,” Rodriguez wrote.
In an interview on Fox News, Vice President JD Vance said the administration will be “aggressively appealing” the ruling and others that hem in the president’s deportation power.
“The judge doesn’t make that determination, whether the Alien Enemies Act can be deployed,” Vance said. “I think the president of the United States is the one who determines whether this country is being invaded.”
The chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., said in a statement the judge had made clear “what we all knew to be true: The Trump administration illegally used the Alien Enemies Act to deport people without due process.”
The Alien Enemies Act has only been used three times before in U.S. history, most recently during World War II, when it was cited to intern Japanese-Americans.
The proclamation triggered a flurry of litigation as the administration tried to ship migrants it claimed were gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
Rodriguez’s ruling is significant because it is the first formal permanent injunction against the administration using the AEA and contends the president is misusing the law. “Congress never meant for this law to be used in this manner,” said Lee Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case, in response to the ruling.
Rodriguez agreed, noting that the provision has only been used during the two World Wars and the War of 1812. Trump claimed Tren de Aragua was acting at the behest of the Venezuelan government, but Rodriguez found that the activities the administration accused it of did not amount to an invasion or “predatory incursion,” as the statute requires.
“The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation,” Rodriguez wrote. “Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of ‘invasion’ for purposes of the AEA.”
If the administration appeals, it would go first to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That is among the nation’s most conservative appeals courts and it also has ruled against what it saw as overreach on immigration matters by both the Obama and Biden administrations. In those cases, Democratic administrations had sought to make it easier for immigrants to remain in the U.S.
The administration, as it has in other cases challenging its expansive view of presidential power, could turn to appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, in the form of an emergency motion for a stay pending an appeal.
The Supreme Court already has weighed in once on the issue of deportations under the AEA. The justices held that migrants alleged to be gang members must be given “reasonable time” to contest their removal from the country. The court has not specified the length of time.
It’s possible that the losing side in the 5th Circuit would file an emergency appeal with the justices that also would ask them to short-circuit lower court action in favor of a definitive ruling from the nation’s highest court. Such a decision likely would be months away, at least.
The Texas case is just one piece of a tangle of litigation sparked by Trump’s proclamation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trump order aims to end federal support for gender transitions for those under 19
Court Feed News |
2025/01/29 16:19
|
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order aimed at cutting federal support for gender transitions for people under age 19, his latest move to roll back protections for transgender people across the country.
“It is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures,” the order says.
The order directs that federally-run insurance programs, including TRICARE for military families and Medicaid, exclude coverage for such care and calls on the Department of Justice to vigorously pursue litigation and legislation to oppose the practice.
Medicaid programs in some states cover gender-affirming care. The new order suggests that the practice could end, and targets hospitals and universities that receive federal money and provide the care.
The language in the executive order — using words such as “maiming,” “sterilizing” and “mutilation” — contradicts what is typical for gender-affirming care in the United States. It also labels guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health as “junk science.”
On his Truth Social platform, Trump called gender-affirming care “barbaric medical procedures.”
Major medical groups such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics support access to care.
Young people who persistently identify as a gender that differs from their sex assigned at birth are first evaluated by a team of professionals. Some may try a social transition, involving changing a hairstyle or pronouns. Some may later also receive puberty blockers or hormones. Surgery is extremely rare for minors.
“It is deeply unfair to play politics with people’s lives and strip transgender young people, their families and their providers of the freedom to make necessary health care decisions,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson.
The order encourages Congress to adopt a law allowing those who receive gender-affirming care and come to regret it, or their parents, to sue the providers.
It also directs the Justice Department to prioritize investigating states that protect access to gender-affirming care and “facilitate stripping custody from parents” who oppose the treatments for their children. Some Democratic-controlled states have adopted laws that seek to protect doctors who provide gender-affirming care to patients who travel from states where it’s banned for minors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship - BLOG
Court Feed News |
2025/01/26 16:46
|
In a significant legal development, a federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. This executive order sought to redefine the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which grants citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil. The order specifically targeted children born to undocumented immigrants and those on temporary visas.
On January 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, appointed by President Reagan, issued a temporary restraining order, labeling the executive action as "blatantly unconstitutional." This decision came in response to lawsuits filed by several states and civil rights organizations, which argued that the order violated the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment clearly states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Legal experts have long interpreted this to mean that anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status, is automatically granted citizenship. The Supreme Court reinforced this interpretation in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, affirming that the Constitution grants birthright citizenship to almost all children born in the United States.
In response to the ruling, President Trump has indicated his intention to appeal, setting the stage for a potentially prolonged legal battle that could escalate to the Supreme Court. This development underscores the ongoing tensions surrounding immigration policy and constitutional rights in the United States. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOCUS - President Trump proposes 'getting rid of FEMA' - UPDATE
Court Feed News |
2025/01/25 00:48
|
President Trump, during recent visits to disaster-stricken areas in California and North Carolina, has proposed the possibility of dismantling the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). He criticized FEMA as being overly bureaucratic and slow, suggesting that individual states should manage their own disaster responses, with the federal government providing financial assistance directly to them. This proposal has raised concerns among experts and lawmakers, particularly in disaster-prone states like Florida, where officials warn that without FEMA's support, handling the aftermath of powerful storms could be financially overwhelming. It's important to note that eliminating FEMA would require congressional approval, as the agency was established by an executive order under President Jimmy Carter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
