Matt Mangino

Florida carries out its ninth execution of 2026

2026-06-27T09:07:59.183-04:00

The 16th Execution of 2026

A 74-year-old man convicted of fatally stabbing his wife became the oldest person executed in Florida’s modern history on June 25, 2026, and the state is scheduled to execute another 74-year-old inmate next month, reported The Associated Press.

Dusty Ray Spencer was pronounced dead at 6:10 p.m. following a three-drug injection at Florida State Prison near Starke. Spencer was convicted of the 1992 stabbing death of his wife Karen.

The curtain to the death chamber went up promptly at the 6 p.m. execution time and the warden asked Spencer if he had any statement as he lay strapped to a metal table with an IV inserted in his arm.

“Sorry, sorry to the family. Into thy hands I commit my spirit and my soul. I’m on my way, Lord. I’m on my way. Amen,” Spencer said, a spiritual adviser nearby at the foot of the table.

Immediately after his words, the lethal drugs began flowing and, after a few minutes of labored breathing, Spencer ceased all movements.

The warden then shook Spencer and shouted his name several times, but there was no response. Several more minutes elapsed before a medic was called in to check Spencer’s vital signs, and the inmate was declared dead.

Alex Lanfranconi, in the office of Gov. Ron DeSantis, told The Associated Press in a text message that there were no complications. He had no immediate response to further phone and text messages seeking comment about the ages of the inmate executed Thursday and the next facing execution.

The family of the victim released no statement.

Florida Department of Correction records dating to 1924 show the oldest inmates previously executed by the state were both 72 — Samuel Lee Smithers on Oct. 14, 2025, for the 1996 killings of two women; and R. Charlie Gifford on Feb. 21, 1951, for the 1950 shooting death of a state lawmaker, Charles Schuh Jr.

Another 74-year-old Florida inmate, Dennis Sochor, is scheduled to be executed on July 14. Socor was convicted of killing a woman just hours into 1982 after meeting her at a New Year’s Eve party.

Nationwide, the oldest person ever executed in modern times was Walter Leroy Moody Jr., 83, who was put to death in Alabama in 2018 for sending mail bombs during a wave of Southern terror, killing a federal judge and a Black civil rights attorney.

Thursday’s execution was the ninth in Florida this year after a record 19 executions in 2025. DeSantis, a Republican, oversaw more executions in a single year in 2025 than any other Florida governor since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. The previous record was eight executions set in 2014.

Court records show Spencer was arrested after choking and threatening to kill Karen Spencer in December 1991. While in jail, Dusty Ray Spencer called his wife and warned her that when he got out, he was going to finish what he had started.

On Jan. 18, 1992, Spencer beat his wife’s teenage son with a clothes iron when the boy tried to stop Spencer from attacking his mother, officials said. Then about a week later, the son responded to a commotion outside their home and found Spencer hitting his mother in the head with a brick, according to officials.

Court records show the teen tried to shoot Spencer with a rifle, but the gun misfired. Spencer threatened the teen with a knife, and the boy ran away to get help. When police arrived, they found Karen Spencer dead with several stab wounds to the chest.

Spencer was initially sentenced to death in 1992 after being convicted of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault and aggravated battery. In 1994, the Florida Supreme Court ordered his new sentencing after finding that the trial court had mishandled evaluating aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Spencer was resentenced to death the next year, and subsequent appeals were denied.

Last week, the state Supreme Court rejected Spencer’s appeals. His attorneys had argued that he had health issues such as liver disease that posed a heightened risk of pain and suffering. They also argued that executing him at his advanced age would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a final appeal earlier Thursday without comment.

All Florida executions are carried out by the lethal injection of a sedative, a paralytic and a drug that stops the heart, according to the Department of Corrections.

To read more CLICK HERE

PA Legislature faces Supreme Court deadline to establish sentence guidelines for felony murder

2026-06-26T08:20:40.207-04:00

With just under a month to go until a Pennsylvania Supreme Court-imposed deadline, the state Senate passed a bill that would create new, strict sentencing guidelines for people charged with second degree murder, the Pennsylvania Capital-Star..

Also known as felony murder, the charge is used when someone is killed during the commission of another felony, even if the defendant did not intend to cause that person’s death.

It can apply to people with varying degrees of culpability. That can include an armed robber who fatally injured but did not intend to kill their victim, as well as a getaway driver who was not present.

Until a state Supreme Court ruling in March, the charge came with a mandatory life without parole sentence. In a case revolving around a 36-year-old Allegheny County man who committed armed robbery with an accomplice who shot and killed someone, the court ruled requiring such sentences in all cases violated the state constitution’s ban on cruel punishment.

The court gave lawmakers 120 days to enact legislation addressing the ruling. But key lawmakers still have disagreements over how to move forward.

More than 1,100 people in Pennsylvania are currently serving life sentences without parole on second degree murder charges. The review of their cases could be the largest resentencing effort in the history of the commonwealth.

The GOP-led Senate bill, which passed with a 30-20 bipartisan vote, would impose a minimum 35 year sentence in almost all cases of second degree murder. It would still allow judges to pass life sentences if they believe them warranted.

If a defendant meets a strict set of criteria proving lesser culpability at sentencing, a judge would be allowed to impose a mitigated sentence between 10 and 40 years. Defendants would have to prove by a preponderance of evidence that they meet six requirements, including that they were not the only participant in the underlying felony; did not cause or intend to cause the victim’s death, nor solicit or conspire in the underlying felony; did not brandish, use or threaten to use a deadly weapon; have no reason to believe another participant would use a deadly weapon; and did not cause serious bodily injury to another.

The measure would also allow the parole board to consider the release of anyone charged with second degree murder who has served at least 35 years of a life sentence or is at least 70-years-old.

“We’ve worked hard to put together a plan that strikes the appropriate balance between judicial interpretations of the rights of convicted offenders, and community interest in seeking the appropriate punishment for those convicted of deadly crimes,” said Sen. Lisa Baker (R-Luzerne), the bill’s prime sponsor.

Roxanne Horrell, the campaign director to end life without parole with the nonprofit Straight Ahead, said she believes the Senate’s bill remains too strict in its minimum sentencing requirements. She noted that even Derek Lee, the man at the center of the Supreme Court case, would not meet the bill’s criteria for receiving a mitigated sentence.

“It’s basically a 35-to-life bill,” Horrell said. “It attempts to do these mitigating categories, but it makes an impossible test to really fulfill … it looks good, but in actuality it will be something that’s very limited.

Horrell said that she hopes negotiations with the Democratic-led House will lead to a bill that would allow judges more latitude in sentencing and earlier eligibility for parole.

“We want a bill that’s going to bring as many people home as possible,” she said. “It’s very easy to make assumptions about who people are based on what they’ve done in the past. But I think a lot of these people are just people that made terrible mistakes.”

The Public Defenders Association of Pennsylvania also opposed the bill. In a joint press release with the Public Defenders Association of Philadelphia, the group said it “replicates the mistakes of Pennsylvania’s current, unconstitutional sentencing scheme with high mandatory sentences that provide narrow opportunity for relief.”

The groups added that it could cost between $34 million and $36 million to adequately represent the 1,100 Pennsylvanians who will have their cases reviewed.

“If Defenders aren’t provided with the resources to provide adequate representation and real mitigation, then this becomes just another unfunded mandate,” said Sara Jacobson, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Public Defenders Association of Pennsylvania. “Only real representation can cure this injustice. Without it, the courts risk new sentences that are just as cruel and just as unconstitutional.”

To become law, the Senate proposal will have to pass the House, where Democrats hold a razor-thin majority. That likely means approval from the Judiciary Committee chaired by Tim Briggs (D-Montgomery), who has introduced numerous bills to end mandatory life sentences for life without parole since entering office.

Briggs said, as it stands, he can not support the Senate plan.

“I haven’t voted for any mandatory minimum [sentences] in 16 years,” he told the Capital-Star.

To read more CLICK HERE

AG Blanche faces complaint with New York State Bar

2026-06-25T14:40:46.441-04:00

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s principal focus in recent weeks has been lining up support on Capitol Hill ahead of his upcoming Senate confirmation hearings, with a specific focus on winning over GOP skeptics. But Donald Trump’s controversial former defense attorney has more troubles than lining up 51 votes, reported MS Now.

As this week got underway, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy and a group of 101 former federal and state judges filed a complaint against Blanche with the New York State Bar, which included a formal request for an ethics investigation.

The 73-page complaint specifically focused on three areas of alleged misconduct:

Blanche’s role in orchestrating the creation of a $1.776 billion compensation fund, widely panned as a “slush fund,” and an IRS audit shield for the president and his family.

Blanche’s role in “abusing the investigative and prosecutorial powers” of the Justice Department to target the president’s perceived political enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey.

Blanche supervising the DOJ’s “flawed response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, including the disclosure of thousands of records containing sensitive victim information.”

Time will tell what, if anything, comes of the complaint, but as the process moves forward, it’s worth pausing to note just how frequently former judges have become prominent and influential critics of the president and his team.

In early November, for example, Judge Mark L. Wolf, a Reagan-appointed jurist, resigned from the federal bench in order to give himself the freedom to warn the public about the threats posed by Trump.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: A Fallible Legal System Should Not Have a Death Penalty

2026-06-24T07:48:24.732-04:00

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
June 23, 2026

Next month will mark the 50th anniversary of the return of the death penalty. There was a period in this country when death row was cleared, and the death penalty disappeared.

As The Marshall Project described it, a narrow majority of the U.S. Supreme Court had scrapped the country's entire death penalty system, calling it "morally unacceptable," "racially discriminatory" and "arbitrary."

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Furman v. Georgia. The court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional in the manner it was applied, violating the Eighth Amendment ban against cruel and unusual punishment.

At the time, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote, "These death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual."

Furman seemed headed to the gallows until Stewart struck a deal with Justice Byron White, who'd been on the fence about the death penalty. Stewart agreed to abandon his moral statement against the death penalty and would instead say that the problem with capital punishment was excessive arbitrariness. The deal resulted in a surprising 5-4 decision overturning the death penalty.

The compromise outlawing the death penalty only lasted four years. Stewart and the four justices who joined in the decision thought that, with public sentiment being against executions, the death penalty would just be a remnant of the past and slip away, never to be heard of again.

Stewart and his brethren were wrong. The decision prompted "law and order" state legislators to rewrite their unconstitutional death penalty statutes with an eye toward cleansing the law of its arbitrary, capricious and racially discriminatory nature.

On July 2, 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Gregg v. Georgia. The high Court found that three of five states that amended their death penalty statute — Georgia, Florida and Texas — did conform to the directives of Furman. The death penalty was back.

Since 1976, 1,669 people have been executed in this country. Executions decreased each year from 2010 until post-pandemic. Last year, executions soared to 47, with the state of Florida leading the way with 19 executions. Federal executions surged in 2020 and 2021. President Donald Trump oversaw 13 executions in seven months. There had been three federal executions prior to Trump's re-election flurry of death — and none since.

As America reaches this dubious death penalty anniversary, it is worth asking why we have a death penalty in this country. Ohio's Republican Gov. Mike DeWine recently called for an end to capital punishment in his state, suggesting that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent.

Pennsylvania's Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro came out against the death penalty early in his administration. Shapiro took a principled position that the death penalty was simply immoral.

Recently, Mike Fox wrote an interesting essay for the Cato Institute. Fox suggested, "When the state is granted the ultimate power to end a human life, the system executing that power must be flawless and completely transparent."

Fox lamented, "American legal system operates under rules where police and prosecutorial misconduct can — and does — flourish with virtually no consequences for the bad actors."

Fox goes on to suggest the legislative creations like qualified immunity for police and absolute immunity for prosecutors have "erected an impenetrable shield around its own operators."

Fox's concerns are legitimate, but when it comes to the death penalty, Fox and most who ruminate over the death penalty's inadequacies overlook the obvious.

The criminal justice system is fallible. Prosecutors are not required to prove convictions beyond all doubt or to a mathematical certainty. The government is required to prove an accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The criminal justice system does not guarantee foolproof convictions. The system accepts that sometimes there will be wrongful convictions. It is a tragedy for any person to be mistakenly sentenced to prison. Those errors, painful as they are, can be corrected.

Death is final. A fallible legal system should not be tinkering with the machinery of death.qu

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, "The Executioner's Toll," 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To read more CLICK HERE

Supreme Court: 'An agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice'

2026-06-23T10:51:38.331-04:00

When people plead guilty to crimes, they typically give up the right to appeal any aspect of the outcome, including the sentence they ultimately receive. In Hunter v. United States, the Supreme Court recently imposed limits on such appeal waivers, which are improbably described as "knowing and voluntary" even when the defendant is acting under intense pressure and does not yet know what penalties and release conditions he will face, reported Reason.

"An agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice," Justice Elena Kagan writes in the majority opinion, which was joined by seven of her colleagues. The decision defines "miscarriage of justice" as "the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute." It offers some examples, including a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum, a sentence "infected with a blatant constitutional error" such as racial bias, release conditions that violate basic rights, and a prison term imposed by a judge who "let an orangutan pick a sentence out of a hat."

As Justice Neil Gorsuch explains in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the need for such intervention stems from a criminal justice system that resolves nearly all cases through plea deals. "In our times, the jury trial has given way to a conveyor belt of plea bargains," Gorsuch writes. "At least some responsibility for that development lies with this Court. When confronted with coercive prosecutorial tactics designed to induce defendants to take plea deals, the Court has often condoned those practices or let them pass in silence."

The case involves Munson P. Hunter III, who was charged with participating in "a years-long scheme costing various financial institutions about half a million dollars" in unauthorized wire transfers. In February 2024, Hunter pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud. It is not hard to see why: He was also facing nine other felony charges, which federal prosecutors dropped in exchange for his guilty plea. Had he been convicted of all 10 charges, Gorsuch notes, Hunter would have faced "up to 300 years in prison and a $10 million fine."

As part of the plea agreement, Hunter gave up the right to appeal his sentence. He later had cause to regret that decision.

The crime that Hunter admitted involved the theft of $38,649 in a single transaction. But at sentencing in the Southern District of Texas three months later, Judge Sim Lake took into account the dropped charges—a variation on a disturbing practice that imposes punishment for conduct that was never admitted by the defendant or proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For purposes of sentencing, Lake assumed that Hunter had helped steal $488,352 in 26 transactions.

"This made a significant difference for Mr. Hunter," Gorsuch notes. "Had the district court sentenced him based on the amount he had pleaded guilty to stealing, he would have faced an advisory sentencing guidelines range of 15 to 21 months in prison. Now, though, he faced a recommended prison term of 41 to 51 months. And based on that calculation, the district court chose a prison sentence of 51 months." In other words, "a guilty plea to a single charge enabled prosecutors to secure a punishment based on other charges they had agreed to drop or had not even brought."

That was not Hunter's only unpleasant surprise. As a condition of his supervised release after his prison term, Lake ordered him to "participate in a mental-health treatment program" and "take all mental health medications that are prescribed by [his] treating physician." Hunter objected to the latter condition, which he argued violated his "constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs."

Confronted by that claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit said Hunter could not raise it because he had waived his right to appeal his sentence. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying Hunter should have an opportunity to argue that his forced medication qualified as a "miscarriage of justice" because it was unconstitutional.

Gorsuch agreed with that result, as did all the justices except for Clarence Thomas. Under Hunter, Gorsuch notes, "prosecutors may not always leverage their plea-bargaining power to induce a defendant to forego the right to contest his sentence on appeal." But that issue, he emphasizes, is just one facet of the problems stemming from coercive plea deals.

"The most remarkable thing about Mr. Hunter's plea-bargaining journey may be how unremarkable it is," Gorsuch writes. "Our criminal justice system is no longer dominated by trials and sentences based on them, but plea bargains that work out in ways not unlike his own."

At the Founding, "the right to trial by jury was considered part of every American's 'birth-right and inheritance,'" Gorsuch notes. "Outraged by British efforts to deny that right in the colonies, those who fought the Revolution cited its suppression as one of their reasons for declaring independence. After the Revolution, too, the founding generation took care to secure the right to trial by jury in criminal cases not just once, but twice, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights they adopted."

Plea bargains "didn't begin to emerge as an alternative to trial in serious criminal cases until the mid-nineteenth century," Gorsuch writes. But today, around 95 percent of convictions are based on guilty pleas, making the right to trial more imaginary than real.

The Supreme Court was initially skeptical of that development, expressing concern about the power of prosecutors to coerce guilty pleas by threatening defendants with additional charges and penalties if they insisted on making the government prove its case. But by 1971, the Court was describing plea bargaining as "highly desirable," something "to be encouraged," and "an essential component of the administration of justice."

Why was it essential? "If every criminal charge were subjected to a full-scale trial," the Court worried in Santobello v. New York, "the States and the Federal Government would need to multiply by many times the number of judges and court facilities."

The Court reiterated that view six years later in Blackledge v. Allison. "Whatever might be the situation in an ideal world," it said, "the fact is that the guilty plea and the often concomitant plea bargain are important components of this country's criminal justice system. Properly administered, they can benefit all concerned."

What does a "properly administered" plea bargaining system look like? The Court provided a clue in the 1978 case Bordenkircher v. Hayes, which considered what happened after a Kentucky man was charged with forging a check for $88.30.

Based on that charge, Paul Hayes faced a sentence of two to 10 years in prison. If Hayes pleaded guilty, the prosecutor said, he would recommend a five-year sentence. But if Hayes insisted on going to trial, the prosecutor warned, he would be charged under Kentucky's "three strikes" law, which authorized a life sentence. Uncowed, Hayes said he wanted a trial. The prosecutor delivered on his threat, and Hayes was sentenced to life in prison. The Supreme Court saw no problem with the prosecutor's tactics.

Appeal waivers add another dimension to this situation, and now the Court has recognized that justice may require overriding them. In addition to the examples offered in the majority opinion, Gorsuch says the "miscarriage of justice" rule should also apply to "sentences imposing penalties the law reserves for offenses different [from] those of which the defendant stands convicted." Hunter's 51-month sentence fits that description, and there are many other examples.

Under the Court's decision in Hunter, "a defendant may be able to appeal a sentence imposing a condition of release that violates his right to be free from forced medication, or a condition that violates his right to speak or worship freely, or any other condition that violates one of his recognized constitutional rights," Gorsuch says. "I would think a miscarriage of justice all but certain to arise whenever a sentence infringes a constitutional right that was 'firmly established at the time of sentencing.'"

The majority also said sentences "marred by serious procedural errors" should be appealable notwithstanding waivers, Gorsuch notes. In his view, that would include "not only a sentence chosen by an orangutan" but also penalties "reflecting a marked departure from mandatory sentencing procedures."

Even "aspects of sentencing that can require a degree of judicial discretion," such as "the application of the advisory sentencing guidelines," "the imposition of supervised release conditions within statutory and constitutional bounds," and the weighing of sentencing factors, could trigger the exception recognized by the Court, Gorsuch says. "A miscarriage of justice would seem to arise, as well, when a district court metes out punishment that is so substantively unreasonable that it would fail under the 'deferential abuse-of-discretion standard' that appellate courts already apply in sentencing challenges."

Gorsuch sees "deeper problems" with appeal waivers. "The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, this Court has held, tolerates only 'voluntary and knowing' guilty pleas," he notes. A guilty plea "must be made both 'voluntarily' and 'with full understanding of the consequences.'" But "how can a defendant 'know' and 'fully understand' at the time he signs a plea agreement that a court might later order punishment that defies the Constitution, a federal statute, or this Court's precedents?"

Gorsuch also notes that the Supreme Court "has found prospective waivers of
many other statutory rights invalid and unenforceable." He says the Trump administration, which urged the justices to uphold the 5th Circuit's decision in Hunter's case, "has offered no colorable explanation why a defendant's prospective waiver of his statutory right to appeal his sentence should be treated differently."

If a defendant "may prospectively waive the right to appeal his sentence," Gorsuch writes, "one might wonder what's to stop prosecutors from pushing their luck further yet. Might we eventually face plea agreements that include prospective waivers of the defendant's right to complain about future unreasonable searches and seizures of his home? Or prospective waivers of a defendant's right to seek a jury (rather than bench) trial in future proceedings if he ever is charged with another crime?"

Two centuries ago, "it was likely unimaginable that almost every federal criminal case would be resolved by plea bargain," Gorsuch says. "Forty years ago, it may have been no easier to foresee that plea bargaining defendants would be pressed to waive their statutory right to appeal sentences yet to be imposed. Let alone that the federal government would argue these waivers prevent defendants from appealing even blatantly unlawful or unconstitutional sentences chosen by an orangutan."

Although the Supreme Court "is not responsible for all these developments," Gorsuch writes, "it has encouraged some of them and stood silent while others took hold. Today, the Court finally begins to correct course, taking an important step toward reining in appeal waivers. It is not a solution to all of plea bargaining's excesses, and perhaps not even those associated with appeal waivers. But it is a start."

To read more CLICK HERE

Lethal injection secrecy being challenged in South Carolina

2026-06-22T11:17:28.402-04:00

How much a state secrecy law really hides from the public will be up to the state Supreme Court, which heard arguments Tuesday as part of a broader challenge on executions in South Carolina, reported States Newsroom.

The question arose as part of an ongoing federal lawsuit filed last year by the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. The lawsuit as a whole argues the 2023 expansion of the law, which keeps secret almost all information about who carries out executions and how, violates people’s First Amendment right to free speech.

Legislators passed the law to help prison officials buy the drugs needed to carry out executions through lethal injection.

The boundaries of that law is what justices heard arguments on Tuesday. Under the law, violators can be sent to prison for up to three years.

Attorneys for the state and ACLU agreed on one thing: Any information already out in the open can be repeated without fearing arrest.

The secrecy law worked as intended. Four months after its passage, the Department of Corrections announced securing the drugs, and executions resumed in September 2024. Since then, seven men have been put to death. Four chose to die by lethal injection, and three selected the newly added firing squad.

No other death warrants are imminent, as inmates wait on appeals.

Public versus confidential

Under the interpretation attorneys for both sides proposed, only an employee who leaks restricted information about the execution process or the drugs could face punishment.

ACLU seeks halt to SC law that keeps execution information secret

The recipients of that information shouldn’t be liable, as long as they didn’t break any other laws to get it, attorneys said. That would include an employee’s spouse, a reporter writing an article, or an advocate trying to sway public opinion.

“Once the leak has been made, everyone else can keep talking about it,” said Grayson Lambert, an attorney for the governor’s office.

The law was clearly written with that interpretation in mind, said Lambert and Joseph Spate, who works in the attorney general’s office. Otherwise, enforcing the law would be impossible in some situations.

If, for instance, members of the execution team identify themselves in a viral social media post, the attorney general’s office couldn’t possibly go after every person who shared it, Spate said.

“The attorney general wouldn’t be able to prosecute potentially millions of violations of the statute,” he said. “The reason for that is because the General Assembly has not funded the attorney general’s office to prosecute millions of offenses against the shield statute.”

The ACLU read the law in a much stricter way.

The nonprofit didn’t want to put anything in the open that could lead to an employee’s arrest, and without clarification, the ACLU believed that could be anything, even information already made public through other means, said Allen Chaney, an attorney for the ACLU.

“South Carolina is executing people again, and the ACLU wants to talk about that without running the risk of being criminally prosecuted,” Chaney said. “All we’re seeking is clarity. We want to know what the act covers so that we and others don’t have to guess as to whether our speech might result in criminal liability.”

The interpretation of the law the attorneys agreed upon would give the ACLU the clarity it needed, Chaney said.

The nonprofit has nearly 3,000 pages of information about the execution process found through court documents, statements from prison officials and news reports that advocates compiled in the hopes of giving the public a fuller understanding of the execution process, Chaney said.

None of those documents would break the law, Lambert said.

“If the ACLU walked out of court this morning and handed a reporter on the courthouse steps that entire document production, the ACLU is not going to be prosecuted,” he said.

Even though the attorneys agreed, an opinion from the state Supreme Court would set precedent in case attorneys for a future attorney general interpret the law differently, Chaney said.

The state’s chief prosecutor will change in January, when Attorney General Alan Wilson’s replacement takes office. Wilson is running for governor this year.

“We need a definitive and clear opinion from this court,” Chaney said.

To read more CLICK HERE

SCOTUS unanimously limits government's ability to deny guns to marijuana users

2026-06-21T08:47:45.670-04:00

In a rare unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court limited the federal government’s authority to take or deny guns to marijuana users, reported Juristnews. The court held that this restriction is a violation of the Second Amendment.

Ali Danial Hemani, a dual citizen of the US and Pakistan, was indicted in 2023 for violating the Gun Control Act. He had a 9mm handgun and 60 grams of marijuana when police with a warrant searched his home. He surrendered the gun and directed police to the marijuana, which he admitted to using “about every other day.”

The federal Gun Control Act, 18 USC § 922(g)(3), prohibits gun ownership or gun by anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) Hemani could have faced up to 15 years in prison and the permanent loss of his gun rights for a conviction.

The court’s ruling focused narrowly on the question of the danger posed by someone who uses illegal drugs. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:

We appreciate that drugs and guns can sometimes make for a dangerous mix… We do not question that sometimes an individual’s unlawful use of marijuana (or any other controlled substance) may render him a danger to others. But…the government disclaims the need to show anything like that in this case. Instead, it asks us to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing.

Both the ACLU and the National Rifle Association celebrated the ruling, with ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang commenting that the ruling protects nearly half of Americans reporting use of marijuana at some point of time in their lives from arbitrary and discriminatory penalties.

To read more CLICK HERE

Newsom claims he is latest victim of DOJ political witch hunts

2026-06-20T11:01:31.542-04:00

James Comey. Letitia James. Mark Kelly. Jay Powell.

According to Politico, the Justice Department has spent the last 18 months chasing President Donald Trump’s political adversaries in investigations that have more often than not crumbled under scrutiny. Now, California Gov. Gavin Newsom is adamant that he’s the next in a long line of vendetta cases brought at Trump’s direction.

And because of the recent prosecutorial misadventures of the Trump administration — which have dashed the Justice Department’s credibility in courts around the country — it’s become an argument that’s impossible to ignore. Even if it’s too soon to tell whether that’s actually what’s happening with the investigation surrounding Newsom’s wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

“This is a huge problem,” said Randall Eliason, former chief of the Public Corruption Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C. “In any political corruption prosecution, the defense almost always claims it is a ‘political witch hunt,’ that prosecutors are targeting him or her for some political reason.”

“The best defense to that has always been DOJ’s tradition of independence from politics and long track record of pursuing corruption cases based only on the facts and law, without regard to political considerations,” Eliason added. “The Trump administration has abandoned that independence without even trying to hide it.”

Newsom preempted federal prosecutors with a four-minute video decrying an encroaching investigation — apparently aimed at his wife’s charity and his former chief of staff — as a politically motivated witch hunt. It mirrored a tactic Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, deployed earlier this year when he decried a nascent criminal probe as a baseless political attack.

A federal judge ultimately agreed and took the highly unusual step of blocking grand jury subpoenas in the probe, which was handled by Trump’s top prosecutor in Washington, D.C., Jeanine Pirro. Trump’s years of attacks on Powell’s fiscal policies, combined with flimsy allegations of misconduct, were clear evidence of a politically motivated probe, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg concluded.

Newsom was quick to note that Trump has similarly spent years attacking him, even calling for him to be arrested. The California Democrat wants the world to equate him with Powell rather than another Trump adversary, former national security adviser John Bolton — who similarly claimed he was the target of a Trump-driven political probe only to later agree to plead guilty to mishandling classified information.

“Department of Justice prosecutors follow the facts and the law, not politics,” a DOJ spokesperson said. “This DOJ has returned to its mission of fighting crime, regardless of the name or status of alleged perpetrators. No bad actor is above the law.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangione disturbed by 'extreme emotional disturbance' defense?

2026-06-19T08:47:18.982-04:00

In an abrupt reversal, Luigi Mangione’s lawyers said that they had withdrawn their intent to argue that he was experiencing “extreme emotional disturbance” at the time he was accused of killing a UnitedHealthcare executive in Midtown Manhattan in 2024, reported The New York Times.

The withdrawal came one day after the New York State judge overseeing the case, Justice Gregory Carro, revealed at a pretrial hearing that Mr. Mangione’s legal team had filed a motion in September of last year notifying the court that it was considering the defense.

In a one-sentence letter, Mr. Mangione’s lawyers wrote, “The defense respectfully withdraws CPL § 250.10 notice at this time,” referring to psychiatric evidence.

Because of the withdrawal, Justice Carro put the documents and transcript that exposed the defense strategy back under seal.

To read more CLICK HERE

Ohio's GOP Governor comes out against the death penalty

2026-06-18T10:08:48.770-04:00

The campaign to end the death penalty in the United States got an important new ally, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine announced his opposition to capital punishment and called on his state’s legislature to abolish it. For a Republican leader of a red state who was a longtime supporter of the death penalty, the change of heart may have outsize influence beyond Ohio’s borders, reported MS Now.

DeWine, who is term-limited, is showing that opposition to capital punishment is no longer just the preserve of liberals and progressive reformers. It has gone mainstream.

DeWine’s decision to call for the abolition of the death penalty marks something of a sea change in his views.

Whether or not the Ohio legislature acts on DeWine’s call and abolishes the death penalty, the governor’s stance may help give political cover to governors in other states who are convinced that it is long past time to move past the practice of state-sanctioned executions.

As I have argued previously, Ohio is one of America’s most important death penalty states. The punishment is authorized by law, but it has been more than eight years since the state carried out an execution. And it has a long history of capital punishment, as well as a large death row population.

That’s part of why DeWine’s announcement has a chance to resonate widely, though he has more to do. He needs to commute the death sentences of more than 100 people on Ohio’s death row. If and when he exercises that authority, his example may encourage his fellow chief executives in places like California, Kansas and Pennsylvania — each of whom also opposes the death penalty — to grant clemency to everyone awaiting execution in their state.

Commutations in all of those states would deliver a severe blow to capital punishment in this country.

DeWine’s decision to call for the abolition of the death penalty marks something of a sea change in his views. More than four decades ago, when he was a state senator, he led the effort to reinstate.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Trump Administration Continues Onslaught On Diversity

2026-06-17T07:47:09.962-04:00

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
June 16, 2026

The United States of America is facing a full-throttle assault on the underpinnings of democracy. Since Jan. 20, 2025, freedom and diversity have been under attack.

On the Trump administration's first day, they went after diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). A White House directive dated Jan. 20, 2025, announced, "The Biden Administration forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs, going by the name 'diversity, equity, and inclusion,' into virtually all aspects of the Federal Government."

The so-called "immoral" conduct of the Biden administration consisted of promoting opportunities for all people to have a seat at the table.

According to The Hill, "The attacks on DEI threaten a wide range of policies that seek to realize the promise of civil rights law: to advance equal opportunity for all Americans. These benefit not only women, people of color and gay and transgender individuals, but also military veterans, people from impoverished or rural areas, religious minorities and first-generation professionals. DEI policies combat harassment and retaliation. They open the workplace to pregnant and caregiving employees and to persons with disabilities."

The administration has terminated DEI programs at government offices, with government contractors and grantees of federal funding. The Department of Education went so far as to require school districts to sign "oaths" that they will comply with the federal government's effort to cancel diversity.

The U.S. Supreme Court got things rolling before President Donald Trump was elected for a second time. On June 29, 2023, the Court ruled that the race-conscious admissions policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unlawful under federal law. The Court found that Harvard and North Carolina's affirmative action programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This past March, Trump signed an Executive Order eliminating "diversity, equity and inclusion" practices by Federal contractors and their subcontractors, ensuring merit-based and efficient contracting and employment.

A lawsuit was filed in federal court by the attorneys general of 19 states and Washington, D.C., alleging that more than two dozen federal agencies are adding new terms to federal contracts that bar "any racially discriminatory DEI activities" without notice or explanation of exactly what is prohibited.

The suit claims that the executive order violates contractors' free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell told Reuters, "This is yet another example of haphazard actions designed to confuse and intimidate rather than provide clear guidance to people and businesses — in this case federal contractors."

The administration has filed lawsuits and cut or threatened to limit billions of dollars in funding to coerce colleges and universities to capitulate on issues regarding diversity, equality and inclusion.

The Trump administration has threatened many elite institutions with "potential enforcement actions" for violations of Title VI, the federal statute prohibiting discrimination, relating to antisemitic discrimination and harassment.

The administration cut $400 million in funding to Columbia University, a focal point of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campuses across the country. According to U.S. News and World Report, federal officials in April 2025 froze $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard University after warning the school that it was in violation of federal civil rights law.

Cornell University, Northwestern University, the University of Pennsylvania and Princeton University were among the schools that saw billions of dollars cut, frozen or suspended.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, the apparent point man in the effort to crush diversity, equity and inclusion, said some of the nation's top universities are "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination." According to Inside Higher Ed, Hegseth canceled, through a War Department order, opportunities for service members to participate in fellowships at schools like Princeton, Columbia, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brown and Yale.

With the absence of diversity comes a loss of diverse perspectives, a reduction in creativity, decrease in innovation and a shocking reduction in critical thinking — creating in society, and maybe more specifically on college and university campuses, military bases and corporate boardrooms, silos of thought, values and beliefs.

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

PA Supreme Court finds skill games are illegal gambling

2026-06-16T09:01:09.343-04:00

State Attorney General Dave Sunday issued a statement calling the decision a “significant victory for consumers, taxpayers and the rule of law in Pennsylvania.”

Skill games are unlawful under Pennsylvania’s Gaming Act and Crimes Code, the state Supreme Court ruled, according to The Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

The decision strikes down what the commonwealth’s highest court called a pair of “deeply flawed” lower court rulings that allowed the slot-machine-like gambling devices to spread across Pennsylvania in a legal gray area beyond the reach of gaming authorities and law enforcement.

“Thriving therein, the devices now may be found not only in taverns, restaurants, and social clubs, but also in mini-marts, gas stations, grocery stores, laundromats, pizza parlors, and various other establishments throughout Pennsylvania — even some dedicated solely to the purpose,” Justice David Wecht wrote in the 66-page decision for the 4-2 majority.

Since the intermediate Commonwealth Court ruled in 2023 that skill games are not slot machines as defined by state law, the devices have been the subject of legislation seeking to outlaw them altogether, with lawmakers noting detrimental effects including increased crime and the exposure of children to gambling.

Pace-O-Matic, the Georgia-based company that produces the software in Pennsylvania Skill games, said it is disappointed in the decision and “strongly believes” the decision doesn’t reflect the facts that led to a string of favorable decisions for the company.

“Sadly, this opinion will have far-reaching consequences, with more than 10,000 Pennsylvania small businesses and fraternal clubs becoming the real victims,” the company said in a statement.

They face the prospect of giving up the games and losing an important source of revenue or enduring excessive regulation and “crippling taxation,” which would have the same result.

State Attorney General Dave Sunday issued a statement calling the decision a “significant victory for consumers, taxpayers and the rule of law in Pennsylvania.”

“The Supreme Court recognized what our office has argued from the beginning – these machines operate as gambling devices and cannot legally exist without the same oversight, regulation and accountability as other forms of legalized gaming in the Commonwealth. Pennsylvanians deserve protections that ensure games are fair, transparent and operated within the bounds of the law,” Sunday said.

The attorney general’s office, which estimates there are 70,000 skill machines in operation in the commonwealth, argued that embedding an element of so-called skill into the games does not exempt the devices from Pennsylvania gambling laws.

The decision handed down late Monday actually resolves two cases: One in which the Gaming Act’s definition of slot machine was at issue; and the second in which the seizure of three skill game machines, cash and receipts from a Harrisburg area business was overturned.

State policymakers, including Gov. Josh Shapiro, have looked to the skill game industry as a potential source of tax revenue, proposing to legitimize and tax the proceeds of the machines at rates similar to those imposed on casinos. Details of those proposals proved a sticking point in recent budget negotiations.

Wecht noted that many placed “reasonable reliance” on the Commonwealth Court’s decisions.

“We are further mindful of the potential disturbance that our correction of the prevailing case law may cause to business owners and other good-faith participants in the industry,” the lead opinion says.

For that reason, the court stayed the decision for four months, during which no law enforcement agency is to take action against owners and operators of the machines.

He also wrote that the court reached its decision as a result of interpreting existing statutes and that the General Assembly could take whatever action it deems appropriate.

Wecht took the unusual step of stating the court’s decision is not an endorsement or based on any policy position regarding the machines, adding that manifesting the public policy of the commonwealth is the legislature’s purview, not the judiciary’s.

“To put it more plainly, how one feels about access to ‘skill games’ or other types of slot machine — or about the broader legalization and normalization of gambling in our society, for that matter — is irrelevant. This is, rather, a matter of straightforward application of existing statutory law,” Wecht said.

He noted the General Assembly amended the Gaming Act’s definition of “slot machine” to include “skill slot machine” as a device in which the skill of the player rather than the element of chance is the main factor in the outcome. It also defined a hybrid in which the combination of skill and chance determine the outcome.

Lawyers for Pace-O-Matic, the predominant distributor of skill game software, argued that the company’s games could be won every time by a skillful player.

Wecht said the definition of skill slot machines makes “abundantly clear” the skill element of the machines is not legally sufficient.

“That is to say, as it concerns their unregulated operation in unlicensed facilities throughout Pennsylvania, it is not this Court that declares “skill games” to be unlawful. Rather, it is the General Assembly that did so nearly a decade ago,” he said.

Justice Christine Donohue issued a separate opinion concurring in the result of the majority decision. Justice Kevin Brobson wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sallie Mundy, in which he agreed that the machines are covered by the Crimes Code but not the Gaming Act.

To read more CLICK HERE

Judge appointed by Trump seething at administration conduct

2026-06-15T09:49:39.470-04:00

A federal judge in Florida appointed by President Donald Trump just nine months ago seethed at the administration in a new ruling, accusing them of cooking up a flimsy excuse to bypass his own judgment in favor of a career official within the administration itself, wrote Matthew Chapman.

Judge Kyle Dudek's ruling concerned the immigration detention case of Dmitrii Iastrebov, a noncitizen who has been sitting in lockup without a proper hearing — only for the Trump administration to argue that the administration's own appointed immigration judge, rather than the U.S. district judge, should be the final word on the matter.

This case, wrote Dudek, "borders on the surreal ... an immigration judge refused to hold the ordered hearing, claiming Iastrebov is not covered by § 1226(a) and thus ineligible for bond. Instead of defending this Court’s mandate, the Government’s counsel acquiesced in that refusal and waived any administrative appeal. Now, faced with a renewed habeas petition, the Government casually announces that its previous concession 'was in error' and asks this Court to reverse itself and hold that Iastrebov is instead subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225."

To read more CLICK HERE

Autocracy Watch: USPS ordered not to deliver mail-in ballots in Democrat states

2026-06-14T10:11:46.855-04:00

State election officials could soon face a stark choice: Hand over voter lists to the Trump administration or risk losing Postal Service delivery for mail-in ballots, reported CNN.

That dilemma stems from newly proposed USPS rules that seek to comply with an executive order President Donald Trump signed this spring to crack down on mail-in voting. If courts let the order stand, it would give the federal government an unprecedented role in elections — and could put even more voter data in the hands of Trump officials searching for supposed election fraud.

The proposed rules lay out new conditions that states would have to meet to send ballots through the mail, including giving the agency lists of all voters set to receive mail ballots.

So far, 23 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia are suing, as are Democratic Party leaders and non-partisan voter advocacy groups, setting up a potentially active summer of high-stakes judicial rulings.

The Trump administration cleared an initial legal hurdle last month, when a federal judge in Washington, DC, who is overseeing one set of the cases, declined to block Trump’s executive order, allowing the Postal Service to begin implementing it.

The Democratic Party groups are asking an appeals court to speed up its review of that decision, warning that voters around the country could be disenfranchised in this year’s midterm elections if the proposal is not blocked.

In an interview with CNN, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat whose state is part of the coalition that filed a legal challenge in Boston, said that if courts rule for the Trump administration, “Then you will see a virtual elimination of mail-in voting, unless the states supply voter lists to the federal government.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Federal judge bars $1.8 billion Trump administration slush fund

2026-06-13T09:22:40.238-04:00

A federal judge on Friday barred the Trump administration until further notice from setting up a $1.8 billion fund to compensate people claiming to have been unfairly prosecuted by the government, saying that her order was needed because of mixed messages about the scheme from President Trump, reported The New York Times.

The ruling by the judge, Leonie M. Brinkema, was the strongest effort to date by anyone in government to hold the administration to its word that the proposal to create the fund had actually been set aside. While Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, told Congress last week that the fund would not move forward, Mr. Trump has been much more circumspect, insisting that he still loves the idea and believes that people who suffered in court at the hands of the government should get financial compensation.

Judge Brinkema seized on the president’s statements during a hearing in Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., suggesting they left open the possibility that the fund could be brought back to life despite Mr. Blanche’s promises and assertions made in court papers that the fund was no longer moving forward.

“We just don’t have the absolute certainty that this fund won’t rear its head in another form,” she said.

Judge Brinkema did, however, give the administration a way out. She said she would consider rescinding her order if, within a week, the Justice Department sent her a declaration, filed under penalty of perjury, that the fund was dead once and for all. She told Andrew Block, a department lawyer who appeared in court for the government, that the declaration needed to be signed by Mr. Blanche and Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary.

Judge Brinkema’s ruling extended a temporary pause on the fund that she had put in place at the end of May. And it came two days after a federal judge in Washington, Richard J. Leon, refused to issue his own order putting the fund on hold.

Judge Leon took the Justice Department at its word that the plan had been shelved, but still warned the administration not to play games with him by pretending it was dead, if it was not.

“Don’t play possum with this court,” he said.

The fund has created a political headache for the White House almost from the moment it was first announced on May 18 — in no small measure because of concerns that it could be used to funnel taxpayer money to hundreds of rioters prosecuted for storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Judge Brinkema underscored those concerns by reading aloud a passage about payments being made to the rioters that appeared in a brief criticizing the fund that was submitted to her last week by two senators, Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, and Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana.

To read more CLICK HERE

Idaho transitions to firing squad as primary means of execution

2026-06-12T08:19:37.991-04:00

Don't get all worked up about a stream of grisly state sponsored killings -- Idaho has executed three people in the last 50 years

Trained members of Idaho law enforcement with demonstrated firearms proficiency are expected to fill slots for carrying out the death penalty by firing squad as the state prison system transitions to the controversial execution method next month, reported the Idaho Statesman

Don't get all worked up about a stream of grisly state sponsored killings. Idaho has executed three people in the last 50 years. Six volunteers certified for no less than three years apiece through Peace Officer Standards and Training, or POST, will be recruited to ensure the Idaho Department of Correction is ready to comply with a state law that prioritizes shooting prisoners to death over lethal injection starting July 1.

No one on the team may have faced disciplinary action over firearms, use of force or related conduct over the prior year, according to new execution protocols the prison system released this week.

State prison leadership has sought to avoid needing to rely on volunteers among corrections officers to pull the triggers in an execution, IDOC Director Bree Derrick previously said. The agency explored the possibility of a remote-operated system as Idaho becomes the only U.S. state with a firing squad as its lead execution method, but one did not come to fruition.

That left IDOC to instead devise a human firing squad, the agency said. “The Idaho Department of Correction recognizes the gravity of carrying out a court-ordered execution and the responsibility that comes with it,” Derrick said in a statement to the Idaho Statesman. “The department is committed to fulfilling this responsibility with professionalism, respect, and strict adherence to the law. Our procedures are designed to ensure that any execution is conducted in a secure, orderly, and dignified manner while safeguarding the rights of all individuals involved and maintaining the safety and security of staff, witnesses, and the public.”

The firing squad will consist of three primary shooters and two alternates, with a team leader who will check, maintain and load a live round into each of the IDOC-owned rifles used for executions. None of the team members may have a blood or legal relationship to the condemned prisoner or their family, or the victims or their relatives. The identities of all firing squad members will be confidential, per state law.

To read more CLICK HERE

Wisconsin case tests speedy trial rule after man sits in jail for 14 months without an attorney

2026-06-11T14:22:10.951-04:00

If the state can’t find defense attorneys for criminal defendants for months on end, the charges should be dismissed due to the violation of their constitutional rights, a national defense lawyers group argues, reported WTAQ-WLUK. .

The issue stems from the case of James Grandberry, a suspect in a major Chicago-to-Green Bay drug ring investigation. He sat in jail for more than 14 months without an attorney or a preliminary hearing, which is usually held within 10 days.

Grandberry, 36, faces 14 charges, including three of manufacture or delivery of fentanyl, amphetamine and cocaine. He was arrested July 11, 2024, and charged about two weeks later. Prosecutors have said this case was the state’s first wiretap investigation for fentanyl and at least 47 people are facing charges. Grandberry now has an attorney and has pleaded not guilty. No trial date has been set. He returns to court June 22 for a status conference.

Before an attorney was appointed, however, Grandberry’s preliminary hearing was postponed 10 times.

Grandberry’s motion to have his case dismissed was denied by a judge. Grandberry then filed what’s known as an “interlocutory appeal” asking a higher court for the case to dismissed, arguing his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the delay. Usually, the appeals court take up issues of law after a case has been completed, but this mechanism allows for an appeal while the case is still pending. In August, the Court of Appeals said it would hear the case. This appeal case continues, even though an attorney was eventually found for Grandberry and his case is now underway.

Attorneys for both Grandberry and prosecutors have filed arguments with the court. Other groups have asked to file what are known as “friend of the court” briefs, offering their opinions on the case. The first one was filed Thursday.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers argues the remedy should be dismissing the charges outright, without giving the state the ability to refile the charges. Refiling of charges was allowed in another case, where Nhia Lee was jailed 113 days with a preliminary hearing.

“Only dismissal with prejudice accomplishes something useful. It tells all that egregious violations of due process beget serious consequences,” wrote attorney George Burnett.

And while it isn’t the prosecutors’ fault Grandberry didn’t get an attorney, it is the state of Wisconsin’s issue, the NACDL brief argues.

The crisis the Supreme Court described therefore emanates from the State’s policy decision, so the consequences of that decision should fall on the State, not those it accuses. Funding lawyers to represent those accused of crimes is neither politically urgent nor electorally popular for now, prisoners like James Grandberry bear, through no fault of their own, the full ramifications of the State’s unwillingness to meet its constitutional obligations. That must change.”

The Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the State Public Defender’s Office also plan to file briefs, court records show. It will likely be several months before the Court of Appeals rules in the case.

Grandberry’s case isn’t the only one to challenge the delays in appointing attorneys. In 2022, eight current and former inmates filed suit in Brown County, seeking an order demanding quicker appointment of counsel. The state public defender’s office has also spent more than a year making over 5,000 contacts, trying to find an attorney for Jordan Leavy-Carter, who is charged in connection with the shooting death of a five-year-old.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Time for Term Limits for Federal Judges

2026-06-10T07:58:24.501-04:00

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
June 9, 2026

In 1787, when the U.S. Constitution was being drafted in Philadelphia, the average life expectancy for a man who reached age 25 was about 72 years.

The founding fathers never contemplated that a U.S. Supreme Court justice would serve 35 years on the bench. In October, Justice Clarence Thomas will do just that. Last month, Thomas became second only to Justice William O. Douglas in court longevity. Douglas served 36 years on the high court, beginning before World War II and ending after the Vietnam War.

According to Professor and former federal Judge Nancy Gertner, Justice Thomas is far from alone in the last half-century. "Justice John Paul Stevens served nearly 35 years before he stepped down in 2010. In the last fifty years, Justices William J. Brennan Jr., Hugo Black, William Rehnquist and Anthony Kennedy all joined the three-decade club." Gertner continued, "The average justice's tenure is now more than 28 years."

When Brennan retired, he was 90 years old. If Clarence Thomas lasts as long as Brennan, he will have spent 47 years on the Supreme Court. That is not good for the Court and not good for democracy.

The GOP understands the power of lifetime appoints. The last three justices appointed by a Republican are ages 61, 58 and 54, respectively. They could all serve into their 70s, which means more than two decades on the court.

How do you stop the threat of despotic judicial control? Term limits.

Why aren't term limits in place already? According to The New York Times, until recently, there was no clear need for term limits. Throughout most of American history, the average justice served for about 15 years.

Life tenure and salary protection were granted to federal judges because the Constitution's framers knew that judges would sometimes be called on to make unpopular decisions, reported the Brennan Center. In Federalist Paper 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that life tenure would contribute to an "independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty." The Brennan Center suggested that if judges instead had to depend on periodic reappointment, there would be a "danger of an improper complaisance" to the appointing branch of government. Such a system would "be fatal" to judges' "necessary independence."

Hamilton was referring to all federal courts, not just the Supreme Court. Term limits should be equally applied to all federal judges. There are 890 federal judges in this country, including the Supreme Court. According to Maryland Today, the median age of a federal judge hit 70 for the first time in 2023. In fact, 10% of federal judges are 85 years or older.

This spring, Federal Judge Pauline Newman asked the Supreme Court to let her return to the bench. Judge Newman is 98 years old. She has been off the court for three years due to questions about her competency.

Term limits would also bring the federal judiciary in line with the 49 states that have some sort of mandatory retirement for judges. Rhode Island is the outlier as the only state that does not limit the age or mandate the retirement of judges.

U.S. Representative Tom Barrett (R-MI) has proposed a constitutional amendment mandating term limits for judges of the Supreme Court and all federal judges. An amendment requires approval by two-thirds of the members of both the House and the Senate and ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Barrett's resolution provides, "Each judge of the Supreme Court and each inferior court shall be appointed to serve during good behavior for a term of 20 years." The amendment would not be retroactive. The term limits would only apply "to an appointment occurring on or after the date of the ratification of this article."

Term limits for federal judges may be a hard sell, but it is worth the effort. The courts need consistent turnover; a single party or ideology dominating the court is bad for America.

To vistit Creators CLICK HERE

Ninety-eight year old federal judge wants to hear cases again

2026-06-09T09:22:15.258-04:00

A federal judge who has been sidelined for three years over questions about her competency is asking the Supreme Court to throw her a lifeline, reported NPR. Judge Pauline Newman is 98 years old — and she wants a chance to hear cases again.

Her story shines a light on the aging judiciary, where the average age of federal jurists is 69. Lifetime tenure is now raising thorny questions about retirement.

Newman, a President Ronald Reagan appointee who has been on the court for nearly four decades, insists that she remains physically and mentally fit to decide matters of the law, and has accused her colleagues of making baseless claims in an effort to push her out because of her age.

Federal judges serve for life--no mandatory retirement, no limit on how long they serve.

To read more CLICK HERE

FBI fires analyst tied to warning of violent Catholic 'extremist'

2026-06-08T08:38:15.002-04:00

Several FBI analysts tied to the creation of a 2023 memo warning of a potential threat from Catholic “violent extremists” were fired, according to their lawyer, the latest wave of terminations under the leadership of its director Kash Patel, reported The Associated Press.

The fired employees included four intelligence analysts and a supervisory analyst. The FBI declined to comment.

“This action is manifestly unjust, completely unsupported by the facts, and subverts standard FBI policy and procedure,” their lawyer, David Laufman, said in a statement. “These individuals deserved far better for the exceptional and faithful public service they rendered to protect our country.”

The January 2023 intelligence product produced by analysts in the FBI’s Richmond, Virginia, field office emerged as a political flashpoint after it was issued, with Republicans in Congress repeatedly citing it as part of their broader contention that the FBI during the Biden administration was targeting conservatives.

The firings are part of a broader personnel purge under Patel, a Trump loyalist who over the last year, has pushed out dozens of employees who either contributed to investigations of the president or who were perceived as not in alignment with the administration’s agenda. The Justice Department has engaged in similarly sweeping firings of prosecutors since Trump took office last year.

To read more CLICK HERE

Justice Thomas is now the second longest serving justice in U.S. history

2026-06-07T11:26:41.071-04:00

As of May 7, Justice Clarence Thomas is the second-longest-serving Supreme Court justice in American history, reported The New York Times. When he took his judicial oath on Oct. 23, 1991, nearly half of Americans alive today were not yet born. “Text” was a noun and not a verb. Justice Thomas now trails only William O. Douglas, who served 36 years before stepping down in 1975 (although much of his last year was overshadowed by a stroke that left him partly paralyzed and paranoid).

Justice Thomas is far from alone in his durability. Justice John Paul Stevens served nearly 35 years before he stepped down in 2010. In the past half-century, Justices William J. Brennan Jr., Hugo Black, William Rehnquist and Anthony Kennedy all joined the three-decade club. The average justice’s tenure is now more than 28 years, by far the longest among modern democracies.

To read more CLICK HERE

Will Blanche ever be more than the 'acting' attorney general?

2026-06-05T09:12:15.966-04:00

Senators voted to confirm Todd Blanche for deputy attorney general in early 2025, but there’s no guarantee they will now vote to install him as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, reported Politico.

Blanche, now serving as acting attorney general, faces a potentially rocky path through the Senate, with multiple key Republicans not immediately committing to supporting President Donald Trump’s expected nominee to run the Department of Justice.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters Thursday it was “hard to say” if Blanche would have a difficult time getting confirmed to succeed Pam Bondi, who was ousted from the position back in April.

“Most of our members are pretty deferential to who the president wants in some of these key positions,” Thune said, but added, “This is an environment where nothing’s a safe or sure bet these days.”

Trump’s nominees can lose three Republican votes and still be confirmed by calling in Vice President JD Vance to break a tie.

But the bigger hurdle could be getting Blanche through the Senate Judiciary Committee, where opposition from one Republican is enough to bottle up a nomination unless the nominee can also get help from Democrats on the panel. It’s not likely Blanche would get that bipartisan support.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) is viewed as the critical vote for Blanche to win over on the Judiciary Committee. Tillis has vowed he won’t support Justice Department nominees who he views as sympathetic those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and previously told POLITICO that the Justice Department’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” would be a factor in whether or not an attorney general nominee is able to be confirmed.

Blanche told House appropriators Tuesday that the Trump administration would not go forward with administering payouts to individuals deemed victims of “lawfare” by the federal government. But the attempt to establish such an account has continued to present a political problem for Republicans, with many seeing Blanche as the face of the effort.

“What we need to do right now is focus on the [Anti-Weaponization] Fund, or he’s not going to have a very good time in Judiciary Committee,” Tillis, who will retire after the end of this year, told reporters when asked about Blanche’s forthcoming nomination. “Just think about what the Democrats would do to him.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Florida carries out its eighth execution of 2026

2026-06-04T08:31:23.361-04:00

The 15th Execution of 2026

A Florida man, Andrew Richard Lukehart, who confessed to killing his girlfriend’s infant daughter and throwing her body in a pond three decades ago was executed June 2, 2026, according to The Associated Press.

Lukehart, 53, was pronounced dead at 6:19 p.m. after receiving a three-drug injection at Florida State Prison near Starke. He was sentenced to death after being convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated child abuse in 1997 for the death a year earlier of 5-month-old Gabrielle Hanshaw.

When the curtain of the execution chamber went up at 6 p.m., Lukehart was already strapped to a table with an IV in his arm. A priest sat at the foot of the table to pray over him as he died.

When a warden asked Lukehart if he had a final statement, he raised his head to look at a group in the front row of the viewing area and said, “I’m sorry.”

Lukehart then recited the Bible verse Luke 23:34, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” which Scripture says Jesus Christ uttered during his crucifixion.

Lukehart lost consciousness almost immediately after the administration of the lethal drugs began. Several minutes into the execution, the warden shook Lukehart and shouted his name, but there was no reaction.

A medic was called in to check his vital signs, and he was declared dead several minutes later.

Lukehart declined a last meal and did not receive any visitors before the execution, though he did meet with a spiritual adviser, Department of Corrections spokesperson Jordan Kirkland said during a news conference.

This was Florida’s eighth execution so far this year, following a record 19 executions in 2025. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis oversaw more executions in a single year in 2025 than any other Florida governor since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. The previous record was set in 2014 with eight executions.

According to court records, Lukehart was watching his girlfriend’s baby in February 1996 while his girlfriend was caring for her older daughter, who had been ill. At some point, the girlfriend said Lukehart drove away from their Jacksonville home, and she couldn’t find baby Gabrielle. Lukehart called his girlfriend about 30 minutes later and told her to call police because the baby had been kidnapped and he was chasing the kidnapper.

Later that evening, Lukehart was found in a neighboring county after driving his car off the road. During questioning the next day, Lukehart told investigators that Gabrielle died after he dropped the baby on her head and then shook her. He told police that he panicked and threw the baby in a pond. Law enforcement officers searched the pond and found the child’s body.

The Florida Supreme Court denied Lukehart’s appeals last week. His attorneys had claimed that medication he was taking for kidney disease could have a negative reaction with the lethal injection drugs. They also argued that having only a month between the signing of Lukehart’s death warrant and the execution deprived him of his due process.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Lukehart’s final appeal Monday.

A total of 47 people were executed in the U.S. in 2025. Florida led the way with a flurry of death warrants signed by DeSantis. Alabama, South Carolina and Texas tied for second with five executions each.

Another execution is planned in Florida later this month. Dusty Ray Spencer, 74, was convicted of fatally stabbing his wife in 1992.

All Florida executions are carried out via lethal injection of a sedative, a paralytic and a drug that stops the heart, according to the Department of Corrections.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Landmark Decision of Miranda v. Arizona Turns 60

2026-06-03T08:28:18.524-04:00

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
June 2, 2026

Sixty years ago this month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that police officers are required to inform a suspect that he has the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel when being questioned.

During the court argument, Justice Potter Stewart asked Attorney John J. Flynn, representing Ernesto Miranda, what rights an accused should be advised of while in custody. Flynn replied, "(H)e had a right not to incriminate himself, that he had the right not to make any statement, that he had a right to be free from further questioning ... to be represented adequately by counsel in court, that if he was too indigent and poor to employ counsel, that the state would furnish him counsel."

Everyone with a television or iPad has heard the words of Attorney Flynn. As I and many others have noted, the landmark Supreme Court decision has become a part of American culture. Miranda's conversion from legal holding to cultural icon is due mainly to the nation's insatiable appetite for crime dramas.

What did Miranda do to earn his place in the American consciousness? In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery. While in the midst of a custodial interrogation by police, he confessed to raping an 18-year-old woman. At trial, prosecutors offered his confession into evidence. Miranda was convicted of rape and sentenced to prison. He appealed and his case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda and excluded his confession. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the court's opinion, holding that a confession would be barred under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and had waived them. Warren made it clear, "If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time before or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present."

As we mark the sixtieth anniversary of Miranda, it is important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court has continually tested, and at times expanded and restricted, the decision.

For instance, in 1981, the Edwards rule was established. The Court held that once an accused invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right could not be later established. The rule created a presumption that once a suspect invoked his right to the presence of counsel pursuant to Miranda, any waiver of that right in response to a subsequent police attempt at custodial interrogation was involuntary.

That changed in 2010. In a case out of Maryland, the Court established a bright-line rule, finding that if at least 14 days passed from the time the suspect invoked his rights under Miranda, the police could again initiate an interrogation of the suspect.

In 2013, in a case out of Texas, a murder suspect who answered questions for almost an hour was then asked by police if the shotgun shells found at the murder scene would match a shotgun found in his home. The suspect stopped talking.

The police made notes of his conduct once he stopped talking. According to the Supreme Court, the suspect "(l)ooked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, cl(e)nched his hands in his lap, (and) began to tighten up."

That conduct was used at his trial as evidence that he was hiding his guilt. The Supreme Court found that silence was not enough to invoke the right to remain silent.

Then in 2022, the high Court ruled that a violation of Miranda rules does not provide grounds for an individual to sue police officers for money damages for violating a suspect's civil rights under federal law.

Although revered as a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, the scope and breadth of Miranda has been somewhat diminished.

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

DOJ goes after SPLC despite IRS clearing group of wrong doing

2026-06-02T07:36:00.800-04:00

Federal agents previously investigated the Southern Poverty Law Center's paid informant program for possible tax crimes, but the probe failed to yield any charges after Internal Revenue Service lawyers determined it was legally structured, sources familiar with the matter told CBS News.

Agents from IRS Criminal Investigation in 2019 and 2020 homed in on shell bank accounts that a former chief financial officer at the civil rights nonprofit opened to pay informants in exchange for intelligence about hate groups. The agents sought to determine whether the SPLC unlawfully failed to file tax returns for those payments, sources said.

But a Treasury Department rule exempts 501(c)(3) nonprofits from filing tax returns in connection with payments to informants who provide information about potential criminal activity. As a result, IRS lawyers later cautioned against seeking an indictment on tax charges, several of the sources said.

A spokesperson for IRS Criminal Investigation declined to comment. A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment beyond its filings in the criminal case.

The tax portion of the investigation, which has not been previously reported, was initiated during President Trump's first term as an expansion of an FBI probe into whether that same former chief financial officer may have embezzled money from the SPLC, the sources said.

The Justice Department in April obtained an 11-count wire and bank fraud indictment against the SPLC over the center's informant program, alleging it defrauded its donors and duped its banks by creating shell accounts to funnel money to insiders who belonged to the same hate groups it pledged to dismantle.

The group denies wrongdoing and has pleaded not guilty.

To read more CLICK HERE