Matt Mangino

Comey indicted again, the clown show continues

2026-05-02T15:06:00.005-04:00

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has become the second Justice Department leader in seven months to secure an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, a longtime target of President Donald Trump’s ire. And Trump is happy with Blanche's performance in the job, according to a person familiar with the discussions, reported NBC News.

Comey appeared briefly in court Wednesday on the latest charges. This time, the indictment accuses him of making a threat against the president when he posted a photo of seashells arranged to read “8647" on Instagram in May.

Comey's Instagram post. He later took it down.@comey via Instagram

The first indictment, under former Attorney General Pam Bondi, was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia over an allegation that Comey lied to Congress five years ago during remote testimony via Zoom. A judge dismissed that case, finding that the acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan — a Florida insurance attorney with no prior prosecutorial experience — was unlawfully holding her position and had no authority to seek the indictment in the first place. Comey maintains his innocence in both cases.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino discusses settlement of Ursuline High School civil rights suits

2026-05-02T14:49:00.000-04:00

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Florida and Texas carry out executions on the same day

2026-05-01T07:58:00.001-04:00

The 9th and 10th Executions of 2026

Florida executed James Hitchcock, 70, by lethal injection on April 30, 2026, for the 1976 rape and strangulation murder of his 13-year-old step-niece Cynthia "Cindy" Driggers. It was Florida's sixth execution of 2026, reported Florida Today.

An hour later, Texas executed James Broadnax. He received a lethal injection at the state penitentiary in Huntsville. It was the third execution in Texas this year. Texas and Florida are responsible for nine out of the ten executions this year, reported The Associated Press.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a stay of execution request for Hitchcock earlier in the day.

In the early morning hours of July 31, 1976, Hitchcock raped Driggers, who was just three days shy of her 14th birthday, at his brother's home in Winter Garden and strangled her to death. In a confession to police, which he later recanted, Hitchcock said he killed the teen to keep her from telling her mother what he'd done.

Hitchcock's final words were, “Just to say goodbye to Joshua my friend. Thanks for all you’ve done." the Associated Press reported.

Hitchcock's death sentence was carried out at 6 p.m. in the execution chamber at Florida State Prison near Starke. He was pronounced dead at 6:12 p.m.

He had a last meal that included chicken, salad, ice cream, pie and soda, Florida Department of Corrections spokesman Jordan Kirkland said during an afternoon news conference.

Following the execution, Cindy Driggers' family members spoke to the media, remembering Cindy and the toll of retrials and decades of waiting for justice. Several thanked Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for signing Hitchcock's death warrant and finally receiving justice after 50 long years and expressed the need for executions to be expedited.

"I grew up watching my mother and her brothers and family endure the weight of this loss," Tanya Clement said while holding up a framed photo of her aunt Cindy. "The appeals, the retrials, three additional trials. These weren't just events in a case, they were part of my childhood. I witnessed the emotional toll firsthand, even at a young age, it became a defining part of who I am."

"Our family has been through so much, but we stand here together strong, united and unwavering for my aunt Cindy," she continued. "She is often spoken about, remembered deeply and I see pieces of her in my own children."

"Her presence lives on through all of us. Today we remember her, we honor her and today we are finally witnessing justice for her life – hard-found, long-awaited and she is never forgotten."

"First I want to focus on Cindy," her younger sister Lynn Cobb. "She was a beautiful, kind and sweet sister. Most saw her as shy and timid. She was so much more than that."

"We had dreams of airline stewardesses together where we were going to travel the world and experience it all together. God blessed us with 13 short years, our lives were better for it. Cindy added life, fun and dreams."

"Thank you, Gov. DeSantis, to you and your staff, that have listened and pushed for justice to be given for Cindy," she said.

"We now close this door on this chapter of our lives."

"I can breathe today, I am loving life," Chip Meadows, Cindy's cousin, said. "Free at last, free at last, our monster is dead. Free at last."

"There's not many people who would have made it through 50 years being drug through agony, frustration, anger," Cindy's cousin Ginie Meadows said. "You just can't find the words."

"The spirit of James Ernest Hitchcock need not be looking for the kingdom of God, because the gates into heaven are narrow. He will never, ever get through them. It is my hope, in fact, that his spirit has now arrived into the bowels of hell."

She also thanked DeSantis, saying, "With your signature on his death warrant, the 50-year saga of Hitchcock has now become history."

"I am believing in you, sir, to continue to make strides in honing in on the process of cleaning out death row," she said, adding that future governors "must be willing to follow the precedents as set forth by Gov. DeSantis concerning the signing and execution of death warrants for those that have earned them. If you are on death row, you've earned it."

"For those of you that just simply do not understand why this process is justified, I am certain that you do not know the agony and emotional turmoil and torture of having someone you love brutally murdered."

In Texas, James Broadnax, who claimed he wasn’t the shooter in a fatal robbery that killed two people nearly 18 years ago and who said prosecutors misused rap lyrics he wrote to secure his death sentence was also executed on April 30, 2026.

Earlier Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request by Broadnax’s attorneys to stop his execution.

He was condemned for the 2008 shooting deaths of two men outside a suburban Dallas music studio. Prosecutors say Broadnax and his cousin, Demarius Cummings, fatally shot and robbed Stephen Swan and Matthew Butler in the parking lot of Butler’s recording studio in Garland. Cummings was sentenced to life without parole.

Broadnax was defiant in a final statement in which he also sought forgiveness from the victims’ relatives. Seven relatives, including parents of each of the victims, were present.

“I prayed to God for your forgiveness,” he said, when asked by the warden if he had a final statement. “Despite what you think about me, I hope to God that prayer was answered. But no matter what you think about me, Texas got it wrong. I’m innocent, the facts of my case should speak for itself. Period,” he said.

The execution also was punctuated by screams of “I love you” from his wife, who also was among witnesses to the punishment. She was emotional at times during the procedure, leaning up to the death chamber window with arms spread, and had to be helped out of the prison.

As the lethal dose of the sedative pentobarbital began, Broadnax urged his supporters to keep fighting. “Don’t give up,” he said, and was stopped in another mid-sentence by a gasp. He shook his head briefly and all movement stopped. He was pronounced dead 21 minutes later, at 6:47 p.m. CDT.

Prosecutors said Broadnax, 37, confessed to the shooting, telling reporters during jailhouse interviews that “I pulled the trigger” and that he had no remorse.

His lawyers had focused his final appeals on two issues: Cummings had recently confessed to being the shooter; and Broadnax’s constitutional rights were violated because prosecutors eliminated potential jurors during his trial on the basis of race.

“I’m really gonna tell it like it’s supposed to be told, that it was me, that I was the killer. I shot Matthew Bullard, Steve Swan,” Cummings said recently from prison in a video created as part of the efforts to stop Broadnax’s execution.

His attorneys also alleged prosecutors dismissed all seven potential Black jurors on the basis of their race, “utilizing a spreadsheet during jury selection that bolded only the names of every Black juror,” according to court documents. One Black juror was later reinstated to the jury. Broadnax was Black.

In a 1986 ruling known as Batson v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that excluding jurors because of their race violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Broadnax’s attorneys had argued in an earlier appeal that prosecutors had violated his constitutional rights by using some of the rap lyrics he wrote to portray him as a violent and dangerous person in order to secure a death sentence. A number of A-list rappers, including Travis Scott,T.I. and Killer Mike, had filed briefs at the Supreme Court in support of Broadnax’s appeal.

Theresa Butler, Matthew Butler’s mother, had asked that the execution proceed.

“This so called confession from cummings is just a stall tactic by Broadnax’s desperate defense team. Its all a lie,” Butler wrote in a post on social media.

Broadnax was the third person put to death this year in Texas and the 10th in the country. Texas has historically held more executions than any other state.

To read more CLICK HERE and CLICK HERE

Mangino discusses Purdue Pharma settlement on WFMJ-TV21

2026-04-30T11:41:00.003-04:00

Watch my interview with Lindsay McCoy on WFMJ-TV21 about settlement of claims against drug maker Purdue Parma.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

The new 'magic shooting' is reminiscent of the 'magic bullet'

2026-04-30T09:09:00.000-04:00

According to Garret Graff of Doomsday Scenario, a close reading of the Justice Department’s charges against 31-year-old Cole Allen, the alleged attempted assassin, hint that he didn’t fire any weapon at all.

Reminiscent of the “magic bullet” of 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy -- this may one day be referred to as the "magic shooting." Here is the wording of the indictment.

“At approximately 8:40 p.m., ALLEN approached a security checkpoint on the
Terrace Level of the hotel leading to the location of the dinner. ALLEN approached and ran through the magnetometer holding a long gun. As he did so, U.S. Secret Service personnel assigned to the checkpoint heard a loud gunshot. U.S. Secret Service Officer V.G. was shot once in the chest; Officer V.G. was wearing a ballistic vest at the time. Officer V.G. drew his service weapon and fired multiple times at ALLEN, who fell to the ground and suffered minor injuries but was not shot. ALLEN was subsequently arrested.”

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Qualified Immunity Gets Yet Another Boost From SCOTUS

2026-04-29T08:29:00.000-04:00

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
April 27, 2026

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that permitted a civil rights suit to move forward against a Vermont police officer who allegedly used excessive force against a woman during a 2015 demonstration at the governor's inauguration.

Detective Jacob Zorn was sued by Shela Linton. The Vermont Capitol was closed for the inauguration. Protesters showed up anyway and were told by police that they had to leave or they would be arrested for trespassing. The protesters were unfazed and the police moved in.

Zorn asked Linton to stand up. According to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Zorn took Linton's arm, put it behind her back, placed pressure on her wrist and lifted her to her feet. Linton sued Zorn for using excessive force under the federal civil rights statute — Title 42 of the U.S. Code 1983 — alleging a state actor violated her constitutional rights.

Section 1983 grew out of the Civil Rights Acts of 1871. The Act was passed after the Civil War to prevent public officials and the Ku Klux Klan from violating the constitutional rights of former slaves.

Section 1983 provided relief — in the form of money damages — to claimants whose constitutional rights had been violated by a police officer or public official acting under state authority. The Act provides that a wrongdoer "shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law."

About 100 years after the Civil Rights Act, the Supreme Court established qualified immunity, a potential defense to wrongdoers. About a decade later, the high Court further refined qualified immunity. The Court ruled a state actor would be immune from liability if, at the time of the harm, the conduct "was not clearly established" as a civil rights violation. The Court continued, "An official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to 'know' that the law forbade conduct not previously identified as unlawful."

The 2nd Circuit Court reasoned that its 2004 decision in a case involving the arrest of anti-abortion protesters at a women's health center in Connecticut "clearly establish(ed)" that the tactics that Zorn had used in arresting Linton, "such as a rear-wristlock on a protestor who is passively resisting arrest constitutes excessive force and is therefore violative of that arrestee's Fourth Amendment rights." Therefore, the court of appeals concluded that law enforcement officials like Zorn would have been on notice that they could be held personally liable for such conduct.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. The high court held, according to SCOTUSblog, that government officials are entitled to qualified immunity "unless they could have 'read' the relevant" cases governing their behavior before acting "and 'know(n)' that it proscribed their specific conduct." The Court found that the 2004 case on which the court of appeals relied "did not clearly establish that Zorn's specific conduct violated the Fourth Amendment."

The Supreme Court has yet again made it more difficult to establish qualified immunity, providing further protection to police officers who harm individuals by violating their constitutional rights. The standard of "clearly established" unlawful conduct is clearly getting more and more beyond the reach of most claimants.

In 2018, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that a decision favoring the police tells officers that "they can shoot first and think later and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished."

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 visit Creators CLICK HERE

PA House Committee moves two bills to abolish death penalty

2026-04-28T11:00:00.002-04:00

A Pennsylvania House committee passed a pair of bills that would abolish capital punishment in the commonwealth, potentially ending decades of limbo in which death sentences have been handed down but not carried out, reported PennLive.com.

Both bills passed the House Judiciary Committee on party-line votes, with the Democratic majority in favor and Republicans opposed.

But the measures also illustrate the somewhat unusual ideological alliance that has long existed when it comes to eliminating the death penalty. One bill is authored by one of the House’s most progressive Democrats, Chris Rabb.

The other is authored by one of its most conservative Republicans, Russ Diamond. The bill has several GOP co-sponsors, although none of the conservatives who support abolition sit on the judiciary committee.

“There are no take-backs,” with the death penalty, Rabb said Monday. “It’s irreversible, it’s expensive, and our government does not have the moral authority to put people to death. I’m glad there are people across the ideological spectrum who understand this.”

“I approached this issue from a conservative point of view,” Diamond said. That includes believing in the sanctity of life from conception to death and the promise of Christian redemption, he said.

“I also believe that our criminal justice system is the self-defense mechanism for a civilized society, but there’s no element of self-defense in executing someone already in captivity,” Diamond said. “Permanent incarceration satisfies our collective need for self-defense.”

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that forced most states to rewrite their death penalty statutes. Pennsylvania re-established the death penalty in 1978, but since that time has executed only three people, the most recent in 1999.

Prosecutors can still seek the death penalty, and since 1985, 482 death warrants or death notices have been issued in Pennsylvania, according to data from the state Department of Corrections.

In the majority of cases, death sentences are stayed or overturned by an appeals court. In the handful of situations where appeals have been exhausted, the governor has issued a reprieve to prevent execution.

To read more CLICK HERE

U.S. Supreme Court takes on Fourth Amendment today

2026-04-27T08:32:00.002-04:00

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Chatrie v. United States, a case that represents a fundamental clash between the Fourth Amendment and emerging technological investigative techniques, reports Lawfare. The Court will assess the constitutionality of geofence warrants, which allow law enforcement to obtain location data stored by a service provider such as Google or Apple within the bounds, or “fence,” of a specific time and area in order to identify a potential suspect. The case may present two principal questions: First, whether the geofence warrant issued to Google constituted a Fourth Amendment “search,” and second, if so, whether it was a permissible form of a search.

Chatrie’s brief advances several arguments for why the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. First, he argues that accessing Location History was a “search” under the Fourth Amendment because users have a property interest in the data and a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Second, he contends that the geofence warrant operated as an unconstitutional general warrant and writ of assistance based on its breadth. Third, he claims that even if the warrant was not a general warrant, the Step One component of the search was unconstitutional. And fourth, he argues that Steps Two and Three of the geofence warrant were unconstitutional.

To read more CLICK HERE

Soldier uses inside information to bet on Maduro capture

2026-04-26T10:15:00.000-04:00

Federal authorities have arrested an American soldier who allegedly used confidential information to place a series of wagers on the capture of then-Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro through the prediction market platform Polymarket, reported Politico

Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a 38-year-old soldier in the U.S. Army who was involved in the planning of Maduro’s capture, allegedly placed more than a dozen wagers on Polymarket tied to the operation, the Justice Department said Thursday. He was charged with unlawfully using confidential government information for personal gain, among other charges.

Van Dyke’s bets totaled $33,034 and, ultimately, paid out more than $400,000, according to prosecutors.

The case underscores the swelling concern in Washington about the threat of insider trading on prediction market platforms like Polymarket and its chief rival, Kalshi. Once niche financial exchanges, the prediction markets have broken out of obscurity over the last year with a broad menu of wagers on everything from U.S. elections, sports and even the weather.

But their rise — alongside a number of presciently well-timed wagers around geopolitical events such as Maduro’s capture and the war in Iran — has ignited broad concern among policymakers about the companies and their regulation. The Maduro trades on Polymarket earlier this year, which generated a flurry of headlines, were among the first to draw Congress’s attention. Shortly thereafter, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton said he expected to see cases brought on the issue of insider trading in the prediction markets.

To read more CLICK HERE

Federal government brings back firing squad as method of execution

2026-04-25T10:32:00.003-04:00

The Trump administration will allow firing squads and readopt lethal injection as part of a broader push to revive the death penalty, reported The New York Times.

In an accompanying report, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, said that decisions by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to pull back on capital punishment “inflicted untold damage on victims of crime, and, ultimately, to the rule of law itself.”

The Justice Department, he said, had reauthorized the use of pentobarbital to execute federal inmates and would also permit additional methods of execution, like the use of firing squads.

The 48-page report added that the Bureau of Prisons should follow the example of states that had expanded their execution protocols amid fights over the legality and availability of lethal injection drugs.

“The additional manners of execution that B.O.P. should consider adopting include the firing squad, electrocution and lethal gas — each of which the Supreme Court has found to be consistent with the Eighth Amendment,” the report said, referring to the part of the Bill of Rights that bars “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, called the moves “a stain on our nation’s history.”

Mr. Durbin accused the Justice Department of “turning back the clock by strengthening the barbaric practice of the federal death penalty — a cruel, immoral and often discriminatory form of punishment.”

President Trump had signaled the moves on his first day in office, signing an executive order to reinstitute capital punishment in the federal prison system. During the first Trump presidency, 13 people were executed on federal death row.

In 2021, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland issued a moratorium on executions of federal inmates and halted the use of a lethal drug protocol using pentobarbital. In his final days in office, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. commuted the death sentences of 37 of the 40 convicted killers on federal death row.

The Trump administration faces one significant hurdle. Under the law, the federal government may only conduct executions in states that allow capital punishment and carry them out according to state protocols.

For years, federal executions have taken place in Indiana, which only allows for capital punishment by lethal injection.

The Justice Department, acknowledging that limitation in its report, recommends the federal government find a new location to conduct executions, in a state that allows other methods. Mississippi, the report states, allows executions by electrocution, or firing squad if lethal injection or other methods are not available.

The report called for the Bureau of Prisons to submit a report “detailing the options to relocate or expand federal death row, or to construct a second federal execution facility in a state that permits additional manners of execution.”

The firing squad has rarely been used in the United States, but has recently been authorized by several states as an alternative method if the states cannot procure lethal injection drugs. Before last year, the only firing squad executions in the country in modern times had been carried out by Utah, in 1977, 1996 and 2010, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a research group.

But in 2025, South Carolina, which had authorized the firing squad in 2021, executed three prisoners using the method.

In its Friday announcement, the administration said it was working on a regulation intended to cut years off the federal appeals process for state death penalty cases, though ultimately the courts have final say.

The department also said it planned to issue a regulation that would impose new limits on the ability of inmates sentenced to death to seek clemency or pardons from the federal government.

The report also suggested expanding the types of crimes, and the types of criminals, eligible for the federal death penalty in order to “correct gaps and deficiencies” in the current law. Congress would have to pass any such change into law.

The administration should consider proposing legislation, the report said, that would make eligible for the death penalty “murders of law enforcement officers; murders by aliens illegally in the United States; and murders constituted or committed in the commission of hate crimes, stalking, material support, or domestic violence.”

Much of the report centered on creating a new legal and regulatory framework to preserve the availability of the drug most often used to conduct executions.

Robin M. Maher, the director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said the report seemed more focused on grievances with the Biden administration than a straightforward analysis of lethal injection protocol.

“It struck me as rather disingenuous in terms of reflecting the reality of the problems” with the use of pentobarbital in executions, Ms. Maher said.

Pentobarbital was first used in an execution in 2010, in Oklahoma, and soon became a common method by which to execute prisoners.

As with other drugs used in lethal injections, it faced legal challenges from prisoners and their lawyers, who said that it caused prisoners to suffer, but courts have allowed its use, and several states use it as their primary method. Still, some states have had trouble obtaining the drug because of pressure from medical and advocacy groups on drugmakers.

In January 2025, the Justice Department under Mr. Garland issued a memo saying that “there remains significant uncertainty about whether the use of pentobarbital as a single-drug lethal injection causes unnecessary pain and suffering.” The department wrote that federal authorities should not use the drug for executions until its effect was more clear.

To read more CLICK HERE

Alabama Supreme Court seems to expand Terry v. Ohio

2026-04-24T09:20:00.002-04:00

A recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling has vastly expanded police power in the state, holding that law enforcement can demand physical identification under the state's stop-and-identify law when someone provides "incomplete or unsatisfactory" answers to police questions about their name, address, and actions during a police stop, reported Reason.

Although Alabama's law clearly requires some individuals to carry ID, like drivers and voters, the state supreme court's ruling seems to imply a general requirement for individuals to carry identification at all times—even when watering flowers.

On May 22, 2022, Michael Jennings, a pastor who lives in Childersburg, Alabama, southeast of Birmingham, was approached by a police officer while watering flowers. Body cam footage shows an officer responding to a 911 call about a suspicious person and asking Jennings about the vehicle in the driveway and the house. "It's my neighbor's vehicle," Jennings answered. "Well, they're saying that this vehicle isn't supposed to be here, and you're not supposed to be here," continued the officer.

"I'm supposed to be here," Jennings replied. "I'm Pastor Jennings. I live across the street….I'm looking after their house while they're gone, watering their flowers.

Apparently unsatisfied with Jennings' forthcoming response, the officer then asks Jennings for "identification" while gesturing as if holding a card. "Oh no, man, I'm not going to give you no ID….I ain't did nothing wrong," Jennings responds. Agitated over the officers' continued requests to produce identification, Jennings begins walking away. A second officer places him in handcuffs as the men continue to argue and ultimately places him under arrest.

A few minutes later, the neighbor who had placed the initial 911 call speaks with the officers. Answering whether Jennings has permission to water the flowers, the neighbor replies, "He may, because they are friends, and they went out of town today. So he may be watering their flowers." "That would be completely normal," she continues. "This is probably my fault."

Under the Alabama law, an officer "may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions." (emphasis added.) But despite Jennings volunteering much of this information from the start and later clarifying his full name when asked, the officers arrested Jennings because he refused to produce physical identification—an item not expressly articulated in the state's law.

Jennings was charged with obstructing a governmental function, a misdemeanor offense punishable by up to one year in jail and a $6,000 fine.

Although the charges against him were later dismissed, Jennings filed a civil federal lawsuit and accused the officers of violating his Fourth Amendment rights by, in part, arresting him without probable cause. And while the district court initially dismissed his suit, finding the officers were immune from civil liability, the 11th Circuit of Appeals disagreed. By reading the text of the Alabama code plainly, the appellate judges found that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest Jennings because they were only authorized to demand three things: his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.

"While it is always advisable to cooperate with law enforcement," wrote the appellate court, "Jennings was under no legal obligation to provide his ID." The 11th Circuit reversed the district court's decision to dismiss.

But rather than simply reopen the case as instructed, the district court turned to the Alabama Supreme Court to clarify whether officers are prohibited under state law from demanding physical identification if they receive an "incomplete or unsatisfactory oral response" under the state's stop-and-identify law. In answering that question, the Alabama Supreme Court effectively overruled the appellate court, deciding that "Alabama law is clear—once an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that a suspect is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a felony or other public offence, [the law] empowers the officer to demand that the suspect disclose his or her name and address in a format that would allow the officer to affirmatively identify the suspect," and that "the suspect bears the burden to completely identify himself."

Although normal for a district court to ask for the state supreme court's input on legal questions, it is decidedly "not normal to circumvent an appellate court's ruling the district court didn't like," Matthew Cavedon, the director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, told Reason in a recent interview. But now, under the state supreme court's binding decision, the officers who arrested Jennings may now attempt to avoid accountability by claiming the arrest was in line with the stop-and-identify law. "Courts don't like accountability for officers when rights are violated," Cavedon continued.

What's more is that the decision effectively gives a "ton of discretion to police officers," said Cavedon, leaving it up to officers and prosecutors to decide when and where a physical ID will be demanded and opening up "equal protection problems and concerns about discrimination."

After all, there is nothing in the Alabama law that requires pedestrians to carry ID, according to an amicus brief joined by the Cato Institute in this case. But now, it seems, Alabamians better have their physical identification handy, or else face the wrath of unaccountable law enforcement officers.

To read more CLICK HERE

Judge Luttig: Justice Thomas' shocking and reprehensible ahistorical characterization of progressivism

2026-04-23T08:30:00.002-04:00

The speech that Justice Clarence Thomas gave last week at the University of Texas could prove to be the single most important speech of political and constitutional philosophy that never should have been given.

Judge J. Michael Luttig writes, “As a conservative my entire life, I certainly wish Justice Thomas had not written and given the insidious speech.”

Judge Luttig continues:

Though Thomas’ unmistakable targets were Progressives and progressivism, his speech is far more injurious to Republicans, conservatives, and conservatism than it is for progressivism because it is demonstrably and inarguably wrong as to Progressives, but it is a siren song to today’s Republicans and conservatives. Webster’s Dictionary defines “siren song” as “: an alluring utterance or appeal, especially one that is seductive or deceptive.”

Oblivious to the actual history, but supremely confident in his ahistorical understanding of that history, Justice Thomas intoned as if reading from the Gospel that “Progressivism has made many inroads in our system of government and our way of life. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever…. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao all were intertwined with the rise of progressivism, and all were opposed to the natural rights on which our Declaration was based. Many progressives expressed admiration for each of them shortly before their governments killed tens of millions of people.”

Justice Thomas’ invidious accusation that progressives in America for the past century and a half up to this very day have been pursuing the same anti-democratic and anti-constitutional regimes as Stalinism, Maoism, Mussolini’s fascism, Naziism, and the like, is frightening, risible, and reprehensible.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino talks about police sex ring on Law and Crime's Scandal

2026-04-22T10:34:00.001-04:00

Watch my interview with Sierra Gillespie on Law and Crime's Scandal discussing a Texas Couple Sex Trafficked to Cops Out of Suburban Home.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

CREATORS: U.S. Supreme Court's Favorability Rating Hits Record Low

2026-04-22T08:53:00.003-04:00

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
April 21, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court's favorable rating is at its lowest point since regular polling of the court began in the early 1970s. Last year, the court's favorable rating fell to 42 percent.

The modern highwater mark for the court was 1999, when, according to Gallup, the court was viewed favorably by 80% of Americans. Then the 2000 presidential election rolled around and the high court ruled along partisan lines to award the presidential election to George W. Bush over Al Gore.

The Supreme Court has never rebounded. The high court has come under scrutiny, while some of its members have become blatantly political. Justice Samuel Alito flew an upside-down flag over his home and an "Appeal to Heaven" flag over his vacation home — both with political implications. Justice Clarence Thomas' wife has become an outspoken right-wing political operative.

Adam Liptak and Jodi Kantor of The New York Times recently did an expose on the high court's secret decisions — rulings with no explanation or reasoning — an emergency docket rendering decisions in the shadow of the courtroom of the Supreme Court's building.

According to Liptak and Kantor, in 2016, several justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, were eager to block a major initiative of former President Barack Obama. By a 5-to-4 vote along partisan lines, the Supreme Court halted the Clean Power Plan, Obama's signature environmental policy. The decision consisted of only legal boilerplate, without a word of reasoning — thus was born the "Shadow Docket."

Could the shadow docket be the product of conflicting personalities at the highest level of government? Liptak and Kantor point out that Obama, as a United States Senator, was one of just 22 senators to vote against Chief Justice Roberts's confirmation. Obama said at the time, the nominee had "far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak."

As Liptak and Kantor pointed out, traditionally the Supreme Court had "handled major cases at a stately pace that encouraged care and deliberation, relying on written briefs, oral arguments and in-person discussions. The justices composed detailed opinions that explained their thinking to the public and rendered judgment only after other courts had weighed in."

In the 1960s, when the court was held in high esteem, decisions were made precisely that way. Chief Justice Earl Warren oversaw a deliberative body whose decisions are synonymous with individual rights, often taken for granted today.

The "liberal" Warren Court gave us Brown v. Board of Education and, within the five-year period between 1961 and 1966, gave America Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright and Mapp v. Ohio.

In Mapp v. Ohio, the high court ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against illegal searches and seizures cannot be used in court. This decision did more to improve police work and protect the public from overzealous police officers than any decision in modern history.

Gideon v. Wainwright ensured that all defendants charged with serious felonies have the right to counsel, even if they could not afford to hire their own. This decision created the era of public defense and ensured that anyone accused of a crime would not be forced to defend themselves against the resources of the state.

Miranda v. Arizona established "Miranda Rights." A decision so ingrained in the consciousness of viewers of American crime dramas that just about everyone can recite the warning, "You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney if you can't afford one, one will be appointed for you."

These decisions, though controversial, were not delivered in secret. They were briefed by learned lawyers, argued before the court and the decisions were thoughtful and deliberate. There were powerful dissents — and each of those decisions, some 60 years later, is still the law of the land.

That is how a court builds trust with the public.

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

Florida carries out fifth execution of 2026--the 24th in last 16 months

2026-04-22T08:43:00.003-04:00

The 8th Execution of 2026

Chadwick Scott Willacy, a Florida man who set his neighbor on fire after she returned from work to find him burglarizing her home was executed on April 21, 2026, reported The Associated Press.

Willacy, 58, received a three-drug injection and was pronounced dead at 6:15 p.m. at Florida State Prison near Starke for the 1990 killing of Marlys Sather. It was Florida’s fifth execution this year.

The curtain to the death chamber went up promptly at the scheduled 6 p.m. execution time, and the lethal injection began 2 minutes later after Willacy made a brief statement.

He apologized to his family and friends and urged his ”brothers on the row” to stay strong. He maintained his innocence, saying he would never kill his friend.

“To the victim’s family, I hope this brings you peace. If it does, that’s good, ” Willacy said. “But this is not right.”

Shortly after the lethal injection got underway, a warden shook Willacy and shouted his name, but there was no response. His skin began to turn gray, and a medic eventually entered the chamber to examine Willacy, declaring him dead.

Court records indicate Sather, 56, had returned to her Palm Bay home on a lunch break from work on Sept. 5, 1990, and discovered Willacy burglarizing her home. He struck her in the head with a blunt object, fracturing her skull, and then bound her hands and ankles with wire and tape, according to investigators.

Willacy attempted to strangle Sather with a phone cord, and when that didn’t work, he doused her in gasoline and set her on fire, the records show. An autopsy determined that Sather had died from smoke inhalation, indicating she was still alive when she was set on fire.

Willacy also stole Sather’s car and other items from her home, and used the woman’s ATM card to steal cash, authorities said. When Sather failed to return from her break, her employer caller her family. Her son-in-law went to check on her and found her body.

Willacy was sentenced to death a year later upon a 9-3 jury recommendation after being convicted of first-degree murder, burglary, robbery and arson.

Then in 1994 the Florida Supreme Court ordered a new sentencing because the trial judge failed to allow defense attorneys a chance to rehabilitate a potential juror who indicated she could not recommend the death penalty. Willacy again drew the death penalty in 1995, following the 11-1 recommendation of a new jury.

Florida’s fifth execution of 2026 followed a record 19 executions in the state last year. 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.

On Tuesday, Willacy woke up at 5 a.m. and remained compliant as the execution hour approached, Department of Corrections spokesman Jordan Kirkland said earlier. The inmate received visits during the day from his mother, two sisters and a cousin, but did not meet with a spiritual adviser.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Willacy’s final appeal without comment. Last week the Florida Supreme Court also denied his appeals. He had made claims based on the state’s refusal to grant public records requests about executions and lethal injection.

None of Sather’s relatives spoke at a news briefing after the execution, but the family released a statement thanking DeSantis and others.

“We have waited 36.5 years for justice for our mom. Our mother, Marlys Mae Sather should be remembered as a beautiful and loving daughter, wife, mother of 3, grandmother of 5, great grandmother of 5, aunt, cousin and friend,” it said in part. It noted the victim had lost her husband to cancer in July 1990, “just weeks before she was murdered.”

“She was a new widow trying to take one day at a time,” it said. “We miss her so much every day.”

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

Another execution is planned in Florida on April 30. James Ernest Hitchcock, 70, is scheduled to received a lethal injection for his conviction in the fatal beating and choking of his 13-year-old niece.

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

To read more CLICK HERE

Presidential pardons impact funds for victims

2026-04-21T07:22:00.000-04:00

Since his return to office last year, President Donald Trump has pardoned dozens of white-collar criminals. He’s also forgiven their fines, penalties, and restitution, to the tune of billions. Some of that revenue was supposed to go to a fund to help victims of violent crime — and the organizations that serve them are feeling the pinch, reported The Trace.

The Crime Victims Fund, established in 1984 by the Victims of Crime Act, or VOCA, is sustained by criminal fines and penalties from convictions in federal cases, typically white-collar prosecutions.

All of that money is required by law to be deposited into the fund. The money is distributed to state and local programs including domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, and child abuse treatment programs. Gun violence survivors and the families of victims who died rely routinely on VOCA funding to reimburse medical expenses, funeral costs, and lost wages.

To read more CLICK HERE

ICE scrapes bottom of the barrel in employment targets

2026-04-20T23:13:00.002-04:00

Their backgrounds stand out. And not in a good way.

Two bankruptcies and six law enforcement jobs in three years. An allegation of lying in a police report to justify a felony charge against an innocent woman — an incident that led to a $75,000 settlement and criticism of his integrity. A third job candidate once failed to graduate from a police academy, then lasted only three weeks in his only job as a police officer, reported The Associated Press.

Their common bond: All were hired recently by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during an unprecedented hiring spree — 12,000 new officers and special agents to double its force — after the agency received a $75 billion windfall from Congress to enact President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

The president put a premium on swift action, and for ICE that meant rapid-fire recruitment and hiring, which in turn led to new employees with questionable qualifications. Their backgrounds and training have come under scrutiny after numerous high-profile incidents in which ICE agents used excessive force.

“If vetting is not done well and it’s done too quickly, you have higher risk of increased liability to the agency because of bad actions, abuse of power and the lack of ability to properly carry out the mission because people don’t know what they are doing,” said Claire Trickler-McNulty, who served as an ICE official during the Obama, first Trump and Biden administrations.

To read more CLICK HERE

Zoosman: Israeli death penalty most discriminatory law 'the world has witnessed since Hitler's Third Reich'

2026-04-19T10:11:00.002-04:00

Michael J. Zoosman writes at JuristNews:

Israel’s new death penalty law is one of the most discriminatory pieces of execution legislation that the world has witnessed since Hitler’s Third Reich. This incontrovertible truth is yet another reason why the Israeli Knesset’s recent passage of its heinous “Death Penalty for Terrorists” law on March 30 has effectively defiled this year’s observance of Yom Hashoah, the consummate Holocaust commemoration for Israel and Jews worldwide that is taking place as I write these very words.

Let there be no doubt: the thousands of members of “L’chaim! Jews Against the Death Penalty” in Israel and abroad are against the death penalty in all cases. As the co-founder of this group, I am keenly aware that this has been the case since our founding in 2020, from the perpetrator of the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue Shooting in 2018 to the Washington, D.C., Israeli Embassy murders in 2025, and countless other Jewish and non-Jewish men and women condemned to death across the world. We carry the torch of Holocaust survivor, Nobel laureate, and passionate death penalty abolitionist Elie Wiesel (1928-2016), who, when asked about capital punishment, responded without equivocation that “death should never be the answer in a civilized society.”

L’chaim members adhere to Wiesel’s reflections on the death penalty in the wake of the Holocaust, firmly stating: “With every cell of my being and with every fiber of my memory, I oppose the death penalty in all forms. I do not believe any civilized society should be at the service of death. I don’t think it’s human to be an agent of the Angel of Death.” Countless other Jewish and rabbinic abolitionists since the Holocaust have shared Wiesel’s position. Many of them recognized the direct Nazi legacies of various execution methods in the United States and elsewhere, from lethal injection and gassing to the firing squad.

Nazi execution laws and protocols were arguably the most racist and vile of the modern era. They functioned not as a system of justice, but rather as a tool for racial persecution, social engineering, and the systematic elimination of the entire Jewish people and other perceived enemies. The laws targeted specific groups — primarily Jews, Roma, people with disabilities, and political opponents — based on the Nazi ideology of biological racism and the concept of “racial purity.”

Israel’s new death penalty law is far from the same as the above Nazi legislation. Yet, by calling for death specifically for Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis, while effectively excluding Israeli citizens and residents, it achieves something that few other societies have done since the time of the Nazis by entrenching an openly two-tiered system of capital “justice.” There can be no doubt that the Nazis’ targets of their dehumanization campaign were wholly innocent of any crimes. They selected their victims for who they were, not what they may or may not have done. This unequivocally contrasts with the would-be victims of Israel’s death penalty law, each of whom is ostensibly convicted of murderous terrorist actions. Still, a similar campaign of dehumanization of those ultimately condemned to death links both systems. The underlying narrative identifying perpetrators of any terrorist act as “monsters” is precisely the kind of thinking that allows an otherwise reasonable person—or “civilized society,” per Wiesel—to deem state-sponsored killing digestible. It is an insidious process that essentially removes the “human” from human rights.

To read more CLICK HERE

Tulsi Gabbard, Director of Suck up to the President goes after whistleblower

2026-04-18T09:47:00.005-04:00

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard asked the Justice Department to investigate two former government officials who played a central role in President Trump's first impeachment inquiry, reported CBS News..

A spokesperson for Gabbard's office confirmed that she drafted criminal referrals for a whistleblower and a former intelligence community watchdog, but did not detail what specific crimes are alleged. Whether to pursue a criminal investigation following a referral is up to prosecutors at the Justice Department.

The referrals came after Gabbard criticized how former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson handled the 2019 whistleblower complaint earlier this week, releasing a trove of documents linked to Atkinson.

The whistleblower — whose identity has not been formally disclosed — reported an "urgent concern" about President Trump's request for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. The complaint also expressed concerns about how records of a Trump-Zelenskyy phone call were handled, and about the role of Mr. Trump's then-personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, in the U.S.'s relationship with Ukraine.

"I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election," the whistleblower wrote. "This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals."

Mr. Trump was impeached in the House of Representatives in late 2019, but was acquitted in a Senate vote mostly along party lines in early 2020. He has long denied any wrongdoing, referring to his phone call with Zelenskyy as "perfect."

Gabbard alleged in a post on X Monday that "deep state actors" in the intelligence community "concocted a false narrative that Congress used to usurp the will of the American people and impeach duly-elected President @realDonaldTrump in 2019." She argued that the inspector general relied on "second-hand evidence" in looking into the whistleblower complaint.

To read more CLICK HERE

Man forgotten on death row has sentence overturned after 48 years

2026-04-16T08:05:00.003-04:00

Texas’ highest criminal court has overturned the death sentence of a Harris County man who was on death row for nearly half a century, reported The Texas Tribune.

Clarence Curtis Jordan, 70, was first convicted in 1978 of murdering Joe L. Williams, a 40-year-old Houston grocer. Jordan, who is intellectually disabled, was then found in subsequent years to be incompetent and therefore could not be executed. But for almost four decades, he did not have an attorney to advocate for him and was seemingly forgotten on death row.

Jordan was finally appointed a new attorney in 2024 as news emerged that there were numerous delayed criminal appeals in Harris County, some of which were lost for more than a decade. The revelation came amid an effort by the county to reduce the backlog in its criminal courts.

Following new legal advocacy, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated Jordan’s death sentence in a Thursday ruling. The panel also sent the case back to Harris County for a new punishment proceeding.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Police Officer Involved Killings Show Modest Decline

2026-04-15T07:35:00.000-04:00

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
April 14, 2026

The Washington Post kept track of all police officer-involved shootings that resulted in death. The Post began collecting the data in 2015 because no one else was keeping track. According to a 2014 Wall Street Journal article, made part of the U.S. Senate official record, criminal justice experts lamented that there was no reliable national data on how many people are shot and killed by police officers each year.

Although national research groups were keeping data and statistics on topics ranging from how many people were victims of unprovoked shark attacks to the number of hogs and pigs living on farms in the United States, no one was keeping track of officer-involved shootings.

Then, of course, as The Post began massive newsroom layoffs, the police shootings data collection ended. Researchers can still utilize the data from 2015 to 2024. The data reveals that police in this country shoot and kill about 1,000 people a year. However, the data is limited to police involved shooting deaths, not all deaths at the hands of police.

Although officer-involved shootings are relatively rare in comparison with the millions of interactions between the police and the public, several high-profile fatal encounters with police —beginning with the 2014 killing of Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Mo., Beanna Tayler's 2020 killing in Louisville, Ky. and Goerge Floyds death by police in Minneapolis, Minn., in 2022, — piqued the interest of researchers and protesters alike.

Campaign Zero, a non-profit research institute, released an analysis of deaths caused by police in 2025, revealing the first decline in police killings in six years. Campaign Zero tracks all deaths by police, not just shooting deaths. Therefore, there is an inconsistency in the numbers. For instance, in 2024, Campaign Zero listed 1,365 killings and The Post listed 1,175. Campaign Zero recorded 1,329 killings in 2023 and The Post listed 1,169.

According to Campaign Zero, there were only six days in 2025 when law enforcement did not kill someone. On average, police killed 3.6 people per day — one person every 6.67 hours.

The data from Campaign Zero has some room for optimism. In 2025, police killed 1,314 people in the United States — a 5% decrease from 2024.

The stability in the annual number of homicides by police can be attributed to a statistical tool known as the probability theory. According to The Post's database, the probability theory holds that the quantity of rare events in huge populations tends to remain stable absent major societal changes, such as a fundamental shift in police culture or extreme restrictions on gun ownership.

The data also reveals an alarming trend. People with untreated mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed during a police encounter than other people approached or stopped by law enforcement, according to a study released by the Treatment Advocacy Center.

Does that mean it is hopeless and no matter what we do, 1,000 people a year or more are going to die after an encounter with police? Not necessarily.

There are examples of changes in training or "use of force protocols" that have saved lives. In New York City in 1971, there were 314 officer-involved shootings, 93 of which were fatal. Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, told The Washington Post, "The following year the city passed a law prohibiting officers from shooting into vehicles."

Within two years, the city reduced police shootings to 121, with 41 fatal. By 2015, after a period when crime dropped precipitously, the number had fallen to 23 people shot by police with eight killed.

Officer-involved shootings can be reduced, and lives saved, with training and a change in the warrior culture of policing.

To read more CLICK HERE

PA faces daunting resentencing effort after Supreme Court ruling on LWOP

2026-04-14T08:34:00.003-04:00

Last month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court gave lawmakers 120 days to find a legislative solution after ruling mandatory life sentences for second degree murder charges are unconstitutional under the state’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, reported the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

The ruling is likely to kick off what could be the largest resentencing effort the commonwealth has ever undertaken, though the timeline will depend on decisions made by lawmakers.

In Pennsylvania, someone can be charged with second-degree murder even if prosecutors can’t prove they intended to cause another person’s death. In some cases, a person can be charged without actually killing someone. Prosecutors just need to prove someone died while the person charged committed a felony. That charge comes with a mandatory life sentence without parole, which the state’s high court ruled unconstitutional last month.

Last Thursday, lawmakers on the state House Judiciary Committee were set to vote on a bill that would have addressed the problem by making those serving such sentences eligible for parole after 25 years, and creating a 50-year maximum sentence for future second degree murder charges.

But as the panel’s meeting started, its chairman, Rep. Tim Briggs (D-Montgomery), announced he would be pulling the bill from consideration.

“These people have been serving long, unconstitutional sentences, and I will not put them in a worse position than what I believe the Supreme Court would order for them,” Briggs said about those currently serving life sentences without parole on second degree murder charges. “I am confident that as long as we all work together, we will come up with a bill we can all be proud of.”

Briggs said that he and other lawmakers on the committee were seeking input from people and organizations like public defenders, district attorneys and victims advocates.

But while some groups had issues with components of the proposal, the move rankled criminal justice advocates who have long sought to eliminate mandatory life sentences for those convicted of felony murder.

To read more CLICK HERE

“Precrime" the claim that biometric technology can foretell crime

2026-04-13T08:37:00.005-04:00

Sara Fathallah writes in the Inquest: In prisons and jails across the United States, authorities now use automated systems to transcribe phone calls and visitation videos and to flag words or phrases deemed risky. For decades, correctional facilities recorded and reviewed calls manually, but AI-driven systems now allow authorities to scan millions of minutes of conversations in real time.

In the 2010s, prisons began using a biometric technology called voiceprinting, which identifies individuals based on the unique characteristics of their voices. It allows correctional facilities to identify who is speaking on any given call and to search for other calls featuring the same voice. Texas-based Securus Technologies, one of the largest providers of prison phone services in the United States, supplies sophisticated voiceprinting services to hundreds of correctional agencies.

There is no scientific consensus on the validity of automatic speaker recognition, and experts recommend exercising extreme caution when using voice recognition as evidence in court. Even Securus’s 2016 patent acknowledges that “each given person’s vocal tract characteristics actually vary in a number of ways depending on time of day, how much the person has been talking that day and how loud, whether or not the person has a cold,” and other factors. But prisons continue to collect voiceprints and build growing databases; at least 200,000 voiceprints have been stored thus far. Sometimes, prisons pressure incarcerated people to give up their voice samples by threatening a complete loss of communications privileges to those who decline. In other instances, they enroll incarcerated people in voice recognition programs without their knowledge or consent. New York alone, for example, had already enrolled 92 percent of its incarcerated population by 2019.

In some jurisdictions, voiceprinting systems can be used to identify both incarcerated people and the individuals who speak to them. As representatives from the Electronic Frontier Foundation point out, such technologies can potentially be used to “profile anyone who has a voice that crosses into a prison, including all the parents, children, lovers, and friends of incarcerated people.” Advocates are afraid that authorities might flag individuals who are in touch with multiple incarcerated people, searching for patterns and ways to crack down on prison organizing.

Today, a growing array of wearable technologies—ankle monitors, bracelets that measure blood alcohol levels, smartphones themselves—are used to track people at nearly every stage of the criminal legal process.

A new generation of compulsory biometric devices, however, pushes far into dystopian territory, raising questions about how much biological information the carceral state feels entitled to collect. Some of these tools, already being tested in U.S. jails and prisons, take the form of rigid wristbands that monitor heart rate, skin temperature, cortisol levels, and so-called “activity” or stress indicators. According to the ACLU, they represent “not just a privacy invasion but an assault on inherent human dignity and autonomy.”

In some research initiates, the data gathered by biometric devices is already being analyzed and operationalized. In Indiana, a team of computer scientists and developers at Purdue University utilized such data in 2020 to train an AI algorithm to predict recidivism. According to the team’s press release, the project—funded by the Department of Justice and conducted in collaboration with county-level corrections and law enforcement agencies—harvested data such as stress and heart rates via wearable bracelets and smartphones. The stated goal was to determine which physiological indicators are linked to an individual’s “risk of returning to their criminal behavior.”

But as scholar Brian Jefferson notes in Digitize and Punish, algorithms used for carceral means are not “simply mathematical objects” but rather “artifacts of governance designed to achieve specific objectives.” By focusing on internal, physiological states rather than structural conditions—such as access to housing, employment, health care or social support—these models dismiss decades of work investigating recidivism and its social and economic causes. Those causes, as AI researchers Os Keyes and Chelsea Barabas have noted, are already well understood. What remains unsettled is why emerging technologies continue to search for answers inside the body, rather than in the systems that shape people’s lives.

Across these examples, a shared pattern emerges: the encoding of the body as evidence, often without the knowledge, consent, or recourse of those involved. This process strips people of their autonomy, dignity, and right against self-incrimination. Whether through DNA, eye movements, or physiological indicators of stress, these systems recast human bodies as sites of suspicion, deception, threat, or risk. Rather than eliminating human bias, they redistribute and reinforce it.

“Crime prediction algorithms,” Ruha Benjamin aptly explains, “should more accurately be called crime production algorithms.” Biometric tools are likely to expand further across the criminal legal system as police departments, courts, and prisons increasingly turn to A.I.-driven surveillance and predictive technologies. These tools are being deployed most aggressively in communities that are already heavily policed and disproportionately criminalized. Preparing for—and resisting—this expansion requires a broader understanding of biometrics beyond facial recognition alone, including the many ways bodily data can be collected and put to use. Fighting to ban facial recognition is not enough; it must be part of the larger fight to stop carceral biometrics and advance digital abolition.

To read more CLICK HERE

Five PA counties charged more than $21 million for immigration detention

2026-04-12T09:34:00.002-04:00

Five county jails in Pennsylvania have or recently had agreements with federal immigration enforcement agencies to hold people in their jails, sometimes for months, in exchange for significant fees, Spotlight PA found, according to Spotlight PA.

Clinton, Erie, Franklin, and Pike Counties collectively charged more than $21 million for detention in 2024 and 2025, invoices obtained by Spotlight PA show. A fifth county, Cambria, has a similar detention arrangement, according to federal records and a county official — but denied Spotlight PA’s September 2025 request seeking payment information because ICE did not start sending detainees to its jail until later in the month.

Local government officials in favor of the agreements told Spotlight PA that the revenue generated supports services such as the county jail or general fund expenses.

“You’re always going to have pushback one way or another, but we haven’t really experienced it to this point,” Cambria County Commissioner Scott Hunt told Spotlight PA in early March. “This is a relationship that has gone back many years.

To read more CLICK HERE

ICE overstates its law enforcement support in Pennsylvania

2026-04-11T08:41:00.003-04:00

In Pennsylvania, constables work alongside magistrate district judges, and have the power to arrest someone with an outstanding warrant, or to serve eviction or other civil papers. They can provide courtroom security or be called to keep order at a polling place, reported WESA and the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

While none of those duties involve federal immigration enforcement, constables now make up more than one-quarter of the 287(g) signatories in Pennsylvania: Twenty of the 73 law enforcement agencies ICE claims to have enrolled in the state are constables. (The agency claims to have 1,500 partner agencies nationwide.)

Participants in 287(g) programs receive training and can gain access to federal grants and other assistance. But several constables from around the state contacted by WESA said that, they sought to engage with the program, only to be told their participation had been suspended.

Indeed, some critics of 287(g) programs say that constables should have no part in them at all, in part for the very reasons that led to confusion in Monroeville.

While constables have limited police powers and work closely with local courts, they are not part of any state or local police department. They act as independent contractors rather than court employees. They are elected locally, but have jurisdiction across the commonwealth.

And University of Pittsburgh law professor David Harris says a federal order for detention isn’t the kind of thing a constable can enforce.

“At the very least, it’s unclear that a constable would have any authority to make a move, an arrest, a detention of a person under one of those documents that comes from ICE,” he said.

Ari Shapell, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said he believes constables lack the authority under both federal and state law to enter into the agreements.

To read more CLICK HERE