Matt Mangino

Trump's cabinet hits the campaign trial violating the law at every stop

2026-10-29T08:49:20.779-04:00

This summer, Attorney General Todd Blanche boasted about the drop in federal crime while stumping for the Republican candidate for New York governor at a rally headlined by President Trump.

In Michigan, Sean Duffy, the transportation secretary, personally endorsed Mike Rogers, the Republican Senate candidate, arguing that Mr. Rogers would help advance his department’s work.

And in Alaska this month, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stood with the president at a rally in which he noted the role of Senator Dan Sullivan, a Republican, in securing a natural gas pipeline.

Such appearances have become commonplace as nearly all of Mr. Trump’s top deputies fanned out to promote Republican candidates facing difficult election odds. But they have alarmed government ethics experts who say administration officials are running afoul of the Hatch Act, an 87-year-old law that limits how executive branch employees can participate in political activity, reported The New York Times.

In the past few months, at least nine of 15 cabinet secretaries and several other senior Trump deputies have been formally accused of Hatch Act violations, such as using official government titles while engaging in campaign activities and using taxpayer funds to pay for political advertisements.

“We have not seen this level of violations in recent times,” said Kedric Payne, the head of ethics for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan watchdog group that recently filed a Hatch Act complaint against several White House and homeland security officials over three taxpayer-funded commercials promoting Mr. Trump. Its affiliated litigation arm, Campaign Legal Center Action, is one of the groups that is also suing the Trump administration over the ad campaign.

“Officials should not be using their titles or taxpayer resources to be involved in political campaigns, yet the Trump administration continues to increase activity that goes against the letter and the spirit of this principle,” Mr. Payne said. “Now it seems as though the administration can flood the zone with potential Hatch Act violations and not suffer any consequences until after the election.”

Representatives for the White House and government agencies contend that the complaints are politically motivated to hurt Republicans and that officials’ activities comply with the law.

The Hatch Act was intended to be a buffer against partisan politics influencing government operations. While the president and the vice president are exempt, all other civil employees of the executive branch are subject to its restrictions. Over the years, both Republicans and Democrats have been accused and found guilty of breaching the Hatch Act.

But government watchdogs contend Trump officials have been lax about observing that firewall during the 2026 midterm elections.

At the Alaska rally, Mr. Trump introduced Mr. Lutnick and Doug Burgum, the interior secretary, by their official titles. Using those titles violates the Hatch Act, two nonprofit advocacy groups charged in a recent complaint. One of them, the Democracy Defenders Fund, was founded by a former Obama administration ethics official and Trump impeachment lawyer. The other is Reporters Without Borders, a press advocacy group. They stressed that the law forbids campaigning in an official capacity.

They also accused Brendan Carr, the Federal Communications Commission chairman, of violating the law by telling the same rally crowd how Mr. Sullivan would continue to advance the agency’s work, even though he began his remarks by saying he was speaking in a personal capacity.

To read more CLICK HERE

Tough-on-immigration replaces tough-on-crime on ballots across the country

2026-10-28T09:12:10.913-04:00

Next week, America votes in the midterms. And as Election Day approaches, a new rhetoric of crime and illegality has emerged with familiar implications, reported Slate.

While the “tough-on-crime” era of the 1980s and 1990s may have passed, similar dialogue today is anchored in “tough-on-immigration” policies. For example, Republicans and allied groups spent $53 million on immigration ads across 27 states from January to June. And even old tough-on-crime era rhetoric has reemerged as campaign strategy, with “soft on crime” being a lead attack of the Republicans, and President Donald Trump invoking the notorious 1988 Willie Horton ad at a campaign rally against Democrats. The enforcement behind this rhetoric has also grown: The Department of Homeland Security says Immigration and Customs Enforcement hired 12,000 new officers and agents last year, ICE arrests have more than doubled in 15 states and D.C. this year, and many sheriffs are partnering with ICE to perform functions of federal immigration agents through the 287(g) Program.

It is worth noting that when the public supports such rhetoric in elected officials, that rhetoric becomes real—it affects lives. My new study of elected prosecutors, published in the Journal of Public Economics, provides evidence of exactly that.

District attorneys are among the most influential actors in the criminal legal system, with nearly unfettered authority over whether to charge people with crimes and which charges to file, and in the vast majority of districts they are elected. I set out to understand whether DAs were influenced by the desire to be viewed as tough on crime. My study suggests they were, finding that across nearly 40 states during the era of rising incarceration (from 1986 to 2006), the admissions rate to state prisons increased by 3 percent during election years for district attorneys. Over those two decades, this translates to 63,000 additional prison admissions, more than a sold-out Soldier Field. But this figure only measures the election year bump; it does not capture how political incentives may have affected criminal sentencing throughout the entire election cycle.

To read more CLICK HERE

Federal immigration agents investigating suspected voter fraud in Missouri

2026-10-26T11:51:48.271-04:00

Federal immigration agents are investigating suspected voter fraud in Missouri as part of a nationwide effort by the Trump administration in the weeks leading up to the midterm elections, reported St. Louis NPR.

In two social media posts on Sept. 3, the Kansas City office of Homeland Security Investigations said its agents were investigating suspected unlawful voting in St. Louis, citing the agency's commitment to “protecting election integrity and rooting out voter fraud wherever it occurs.”

HSI is Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s investigative arm, which typically deals with criminal matters such as human trafficking, weapons trade and financial fraud. The Department of Homeland Security is using the agency, CNN reports, in President Trump's hunt for widespread election fraud.

One photograph shows a federal agent walking in front of the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners office. Another shows two HSI agents outside a residential building. The agency posted that agents were “on the ground in St. Louis investigating suspected unlawful voting”; the post does not say when the photographs were taken or how many people are under investigation.

To read more CLICK HERE

Court rejects Trump administration effort to strip due process from detained immigrants

2026-10-25T21:12:08.138-04:00

A federal appeals court rejected a Trump administration argument that asserted the government could perpetually "reset" a six-month maximum limit on detentions for re-detained immigrants, making their rights "meaningless," reported Raw Story.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday in the case of Kaveh Abedi, an Iranian man whom Immigration and Customs Enforcement locked up again in 2025.

Under the ruling, the interview requirement ICE failed to meet protects a detainee’s due process rights, which guarantee fair treatment before the government takes away someone’s freedom.

“[W]e hold that the Government violated its regulations by failing to ‘promptly’ provide Mr. Abedi with an informal interview and opportunity to be heard on its reasons for revoking his release,” Judge Carolyn McHugh wrote for the three-judge panel.

To read more CLICK HERE

Federal judge removed from case for using AI-hallucinations as legal authority in controversial ruling

2026-10-24T14:34:44.788-04:00

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction aimed at blocking Mississippi’s anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) education law and ordered US District Judge Henry Wingate removed from the case, reported JURISTnews.

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel in Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch, Circuit Judge Jerry Smith condemned the lower court’s handling of the constitutional challenge to Mississippi House Bill 1193. Judge Wingate initially issued a July 2025 temporary restraining order (TRO) that named 11 non-existent plaintiffs, cited declarations from four individuals absent from the record, and fabricated quotes from the state statute. When state officials flagged the errors, Wingate replaced the order with a backdated version and dismissed the mistakes as clerical.

Following an oversight inquiry by Senator Chuck Grassley, Wingate admitted in October 2025 that a law clerk had used generative artificial intelligence (AI) to draft the initial order. During appellate oral arguments, the panel discovered that the replacement TRO, which Wingate incorporated by reference into his August 2025 statewide preliminary injunction, still contained an AI-hallucinated citation to a non-existent 1974 Fourth Circuit case, Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk.

Rebuking the lower court’s reliance on fabricated facts and flawed legal reasoning, Judge Smith wrote:

The proceedings in the district court were a botch job, to say the least. … This district judge carelessly exercised his Article III power by issuing sloppy edicts based on falsehoods and fabrications. Upon discovering some of these falsehoods, Judge Wingate dug in his heels and claimed that the hallucinated claims had no bearing on its reasoning; he offered no explanation as to why he included such apparently irrelevant material in the original TRO or why the TRO nevertheless was justified in its absence. Moreover, the district court got the law wrong. The TRO and preliminary injunction order rested on impoverished legal analysis that barely paid lip-service to the precedents of the Supreme Court or this court, seeming at times purposely to misconstrue the law by manipulating the words of statutes and cases, without regard to their texts’ meaning as a whole. The district court—or perhaps, being charitable, its AI agent—ignored and manipulated governing law, apparently to satisfy a policy agenda.

Enacted in April 2025, House Bill 1193 bars Mississippi public schools and universities from maintaining DEI offices, mandating diversity statements, or endorsing specific DEI concepts in course materials. While courts worldwide have increasingly confronted legal officials misusing AI in court filings, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Wingate’s errors required reassigning the case to a new judge on remand to preserve public confidence in the judiciary.

To read more CLICK HERE

Tennessee GOP wants to bring back the firing squad or electric chair

2026-10-23T11:47:24.738-04:00

Tennessee Republican lawmakers are ready to change the state’s death penalty laws in the wake of two botched executions by lethal injection, including a renewed look at electrocution and firing squads, reported the Tennessee Lookout.

Republican Rep. Jody Barrett of Dickson confirmed this week he is considering sponsoring legislation in 2027 to make firing squads a method for putting people to death, even though one Democratic lawmaker called the practice “depraved.”

Republican Sen. Tom Hatcher also said he is having a bill drafted that would either remove lethal injection from the execution process or reform it based on the results of a third-party investigation Gov. Bill Lee ordered after the failed execution of convicted murderer Christa Pike in September. Hatcher, a first-term senator from Maryville, acknowledged that eliminating lethal injection would leave electrocution as the only way allowed to put people to death.

“I think we’ve gotta do away with lethal injections,” Hatcher said. Short of that, he said the process needs to be changed and possibly have a standard third-party investigation for each execution, regardless of the outcome “to keep us and the public aware of what’s going on.”

He added he has spoken with other lawmakers who are looking at other options but said he’s not filing a bill for alternatives.

Tennessee allows death row inmates convicted before 1999 to choose the electric chair. Electrocution also is allowed if lethal injections drugs are unavailable or if lethal injection is found unconstitutional.

Asked what steps he would take if the governor’s third-party investigation comes back with a report saying lethal injections can be carried out effectively, Hatcher said it wouldn’t conflict with his plans and noted he could file legislation that could be amended based on the final report.

Barrett confirmed he’s exploring all options, including a firing squad. Other lawmakers, including Republican Rep. Paul Sherrell, broached the idea recently of public hangings to deter crime.

“After the trouble we’ve had with at least the last four years with the lethal injection, all alternatives need to be looked at,” Barrett said.

Such moves are likely to run into legal challenges that could last for years.

Democratic Rep. Aftyn Behn called the use of firing squads and hangings “depraved and ungodly.”

The governor put a last-minute hold on executions in May 2022 before the execution of Oscar Smith because the state failed to conduct required testing for the lethal injection drugs.

Former U.S. Attorney Ed Stanton, who is handling the newest probe, conducted a previous third-party investigation of the state’s protocol, chemical testing and Department of Correction procedures. That study led to new protocol, yet two of the state’s last three executions failed this year.

A group of Republican senators urged Lee to conduct another investigation of the state’s death penalty procedures before the botched Pike execution, but he declined.

Barrett said Utah and South Carolina are using firing squads to carry out the death penalty and added that some experts are testifying that a firing squad is more humane than other alternatives, “a quicker, more painless death.” Other states allowing use of firing squads are Oklahoma, Mississippi and Idaho, the latter of which makes firing squads the principal means of execution.

“If that’s truly the case, I think it’s something we should explore as a state, as a possible alternative to what we’re doing currently that doesn’t seem to be working very smoothly,” Barrett said.

Barrett said he’s been “adamant” for six to eight months that the state’s lethal injection protocol needs more “transparency.” If problems can’t be resolved by changing the protocol, lawmakers need to consider other methods as long as the state keeps the death penalty, he said.

Sen. Ken Yager also is among those saying the state needs to find other options, though he declined to say Wednesday whether he supports the use of firing squads.

“When a convicted murderer is sentenced to death, the state must be able to carry out the lawful sentence effectively. As we examine the best path forward to improve the process, I am open to considering other constitutionally sound methods of execution to ensure justice is delivered for victims and their families,” Yager, a Kingston Republican, said in a statement.

To read more CLICK HERE

Florida executes 77-year-old man, the state's 18th execution of the year

2026-10-21T10:06:40.352-04:00

The 32nd Execution of 2026

Florida carried out its 18th execution of the year on Tuesday under Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis ’ aggressive use of the death penalty in his final term, reported The Associated Press.

William Reaves, 77, was pronounced dead at 6:12 p.m. following a three-drug injection at Florida State Prison near Starke. He was convicted of first-degree murder in the September 1986 shooting death of Indian River County sheriff’s deputy Richard Raczkoski.

The death chamber curtain went up promptly at the 6 p.m. execution time with Reaves already strapped to a gurney with an IV in his arm. Asked if he had any last words, he replied ”No, I do not.”

The injection began immediately after that. About 30 seconds later, Reaves took several big breaths and then stopped moving. After a few minutes, the team warden shook Reaves’ shoulders and shouted his name, but there was no response. A medic was called in a short time later to check for a heartbeat or any other signs of life.

Reaves was the eighth Florida prisoner over age 70 put to death this year, highlighting the nation’s aging death-row population as Florida continues to far outpace the rest of country in total executions. Last year, Florida set a state record with 19 executions in a year, and it’s poised to tie that mark if another execution is carried out next month as scheduled.

DeSantis, who leaves office in January after two terms, has said he wants justice to be delivered to victims’ families who have often waited decades for death sentences to be imposed.

Marc Raczkoski, the deputy’s brother, briefly told reporters after witnessing the execution that his brother finally got justice.

But Indian River County Sheriff Eric Flowers, who was also on hand, said at a post-execution briefing that he saw the execution as closure, not justice.

“Would we all be so lucky to be 77 years old and to die so peacefully,” Flowers said. “That’s not justice in any way in my opinion.”

Reaves struggled with the deputy after dropping a gun

Raczkoski responded to a 911 call at a Vero Beach convenience store on Sept. 23, 1986, according to court records. Reaves later acknowledged he had placed the call from a payphone outside the store.

While the two men talked, a gun fell out of Reaves’ shorts, officials said. They then struggled over the weapon, and Reaves eventually regained control of it. Investigators said the deputy was trying to run away when Reaves shot him four times. Raczkoski died later that day from his wounds.

Reaves was convicted and sentenced to death about a year after the shooting. But the Florida Supreme Court overturned the conviction because of a conflict of interest with the prosecutor and ordered a new trial. Reaves was convicted again and newly sentenced to death in 1992. Subsequent appeals were unsuccessful.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon rejected Reaves’ 11th-hour appeal without comment.

Lawyers challenged lethal injection procedure

The Florida Supreme Court last week also rejected Reaves’ appeals seeking to spare his life.

His attorneys challenged Florida’s three-drug lethal injection protocol. All Florida executions are carried out via injection of a sedative, a paralytic and a drug that stops the heart, according to the Department of Corrections.

The court has previously upheld the protocol against similar challenges. Florida’s method differs from the single-drug injection used in states such as Tennessee, where condemned inmate Christa Pike was rushed to a hospital last month after surviving two doses of pentobarbital.

Reaves’ attorneys also argued that jurors who recommended the death penalty were never told the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs had rated the Army veteran as 100% disabled because of post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from his service in the Vietnam War.

More than 100 military veterans appealed to DeSantis to halt the execution in a letter Monday, citing those factors.

Florida close to tying its 2025 record of 19 executions

A total of 47 people were executed in the United States in 2025. Florida led the nation that year with 19 executions and has accounted for more than half of the 32 U.S. executions — Reaves included — carried out thus far in 2026.

In July, Florida executed two prisoners in one day, becoming the first state in nearly a decade to do so.

On Nov. 5, Jesse Guardado, 64, is scheduled to receive a lethal injection in the same Florida death chamber. Guardado was convicted of robbing and killing a 75-year-old woman while stealing items on a crack cocaine binge in 2004.

To read more CLICK HERE

Enforcement of financial crimes is dropping under Trump Adminstration

2026-10-20T21:50:54.073-04:00

Earlier this week, Bloomberg broke the news that the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which helps regulate the securities market, was told to stop investigating an eye-popping case of potential insider trading, reported Mother Jones. The direction came from a top adviser to the agency’s Trump-appointed chairman, who ordered investigators to retract a referral to the agency’s lawyers surrounding suspiciously timed and lucrative oil trades that were executed minutes before the president sent social media posts rescinding threats to attack Iranian power plants.

This sidelined CFTC investigation is just the latest in a growing pattern: Enforcement of financial crimes is dropping in Donald Trump’s second term, unraveling offices and reforms that will be difficult to rebuild. It also is laying the groundwork for more corporate fraud, or even a broader financial crisis, in the long term, experts say.

This trend has affected each federal agency that handles financial crimes—including the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees Wall Street, the Justice Department, and the White House itself. Just a few months after Trump’s reelection, the SEC dismissed a case against crypto exchange Coinbase, then halted a prosecution against a Chinese crypto entrepreneur who bought millions in tokens from a Trump family crypto venture. Several months later, the White House pardoned crypto giant Binance and its ex-CEO.

In May, a private-sector analysis found that the SEC had initiated just five enforcement cases against companies in half a year—the lowest number in the first half of a fiscal year in at least 16 years.

This spring, Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent letters to the SEC expressing concern: The director of the enforcement division that brings cases against companies quit after just six months on the job, reportedly over disagreements with the agency about acting against entities that back Donald Trump. Staffing at the corporate watchdog had also fallen by 17 percent, with much of that coming from the enforcement arm. In April, the SEC quietly released data showing that in fiscal year 2025, the agency had brought nearly 30 percent fewer new enforcement actions than the prior year. In May, a private-sector analysis found that the SEC had initiated just five enforcement cases against companies in half a year—the lowest number in the first half of a fiscal year in at least 16 years.

Some drop in enforcement activity when a new president takes office is normal, says Eugene Soltes, a professor at Harvard Business School who studies white-collar crime and corporate compliance. That’s true regardless of party affiliation, because each new administration shifts its priorities and enforcement staff in the initial months after inauguration. But the current waning enforcement of white-collar crime, he says, goes beyond the typical dip that comes with a new presidency.

“I think it’s been clear that the current administration has been very vocal about having a lighter footprint and lighter-touch approach to disciplining companies,” Soltes says. “This seems to be a direct output of policy shifts.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Voss: Why the U.S. Military Has Never Threatened Civilian Governance

2026-10-16T09:31:18.317-04:00

Loren Voss writing for Lawfare:

Military firings, removals from promotion lists, and early retirements have rarely, if ever, been in the headlines as much as they have been over the past year. Recent domestic military deployments with never-before-used authorities (10 U.S.C. § 12406) or reinterpreted authorities (32 U.S.C. § 502(f)) have sparked vociferous debate in Congress over presidential power and the role of the federal military, particularly on the home front.

Kori Schake’s “The State and the Soldier” provides a framework for understanding and evaluating the current contested state of civil-military affairs in the United States. In Schake’s view, American civil-military relations has three central tenets: Members of the military owe their loyalty to the Constitution; they are subordinate not only to the president as commander in chief and but also to Congress; and they can only faithfully carry out civilian orders or resign. Her new book’s central thesis is that an evaluation of healthy civil-military relations can be distilled into two tests: (a) Can the president fire military leaders with impunity? and (b) Will the military carry out policies they don’t agree with?

Schake argues that despite the founders’ fears about the risks associated with a standing army, the U.S. military has never posed a threat to civilian governance. Throughout the book, she uses historical examples to explain how the military professionalism that so worried the founding generation has instead become a bulwark of American democracy. Her history effectively demonstrates the importance of military professionalism but also raises the question: What obligations do civilian leaders have to ensure the military does not pose a threat to democracy?

Schake starts with the origin story of civil-military relations in the United States during George Washington’s tenure as commander in chief of the American colonies’ revolutionary army. Her account of Washington’s is considerably more interesting and accurate than the sentimental story of the reluctant but near-perfect politician who led America at its founding. She argues that his “every act was imbued with politics, and the consciousness of their consequence caused that great man to weigh those acts in light of strengthening the nascent republic.” He wore his uniform in sessions of the Continental Congress; made his last act as a general a political appeal—a public letter to state governments outlining what he thought was needed next; and used his veteran status for political ends. Yet his enduring legacy, established while in uniform, was the foundational subordination of the military to elected civilian leaders.

Schake then regales readers with stories of “bad examples” of military officers’ acting on political considerations, many of which seem nearly unbelievable today. In 1804, the senior-most officer of the Army, James Wilkinson, joined a conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government and establish a new country, led by former Vice President Aaron Burr. Wilkinson revealed the effort to the president, but only after he believed the effort would fail. Schake recounts a confrontation between Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and President Andrew Johnson in 1866 in which Johnson, afraid that Grant would side with Congress in any executive-legislative fight, ordered Grant to the Mexican border to undertake some negotiations. Allegedly, Grant privately stated that he would disobey the order because it was a political order to get rid of him. Johnson posed the issue to the attorney general at a cabinet meeting. Grant argued that he had a responsibility to carry out the commander in chief’s military orders, but the president did not have the authority to order him in areas beyond the military sphere. Although this was Grant’s most direct refusal to submit to civilian control, Grant frequently circumvented the president’s directives in areas directly within the military realm.

Schake recounts how Civil War generals Grant, Zachary Taylor, George McClellan, and Winfield Scott all campaigned for the presidency while on active duty. Indeed, Taylor and Grant both won the presidency but did not resign their commissions until months later, Grant not until the day he took the presidential oath of office. Scott, by contrast, won his party’s nomination only once but campaigned for the presidency three times while serving as commanding general of the army, and kept the role after losing.

But in gauging the significance of these examples, it is important to keep in mind two caveats. First, civil-military norms in that era were different from those today; thus there did not appear to be any general outcry about these generals’ electoral efforts (not that a lack of criticism makes it good unto itself). Second, the meaning of active duty at the time was also different from today—McClellan had specifically relinquished command of the Army of the Potomac almost two years prior and had no military assignment while running for office.

Schake concludes that these bad examples are actually few and far between throughout the country’s 250-year history, and, more importantly, they did not become precedents later military actors built upon. Her historical narratives lead to the somewhat surprising realization that the lack of a threat to civilian control of the military appears to be largely due to the military’s professionalism rather than to the enforcement of civil-military norms by civilian leadership, which frequently let bad behavior by senior military officers go unpunished.

Strong professional ethics is one reason the military is frequently touted as the “most trusted public institution” (although it’s worth noting that the military’s reputation in this regard sits near a multi-decade low). However, Schake raises the concern that the popularity of the military, and particularly of certain military leaders, may then pose risks to civilian control. She offers numerous examples in which military insubordination or creative reinterpretation of orders should have resulted in the court-martialing or firing of senior military leaders, but presidents decided not to pursue such actions for fear of political repercussions. President Monroe, for example, authorized Maj. Gen. Andrew Jackson to defend against Seminole raids. Jackson instead engaged Spanish forces and occupied Pensacola, arguably with the intention of conquering Florida. Jackson’s popularity stemming from previous battlefield successes constrained the president’s ability to rein in Jackson’s insubordination. Monroe gave control of Florida back to Spain but did not offer a real rebuke of Jackson’s actions.

In most of these “bad examples,” the military officers knew what civilian leadership intended and determined they knew better. Schake seems to believe the largest concern is this kind of praetorianism, in which military leaders believe they possess better judgment about the true public interest than their civilian superiors. The term is derived from a class of soldiers during the Roman Republic who became so powerful they were able to determine political outcomes.

Schake also tells a story of military officers who did not stand up to civilian leadership but were then criticized for their silence (or at least their public silence). H.R. McMaster’s “Dereliction of Duty” is well-known in military circles as a compelling account of mistaken Vietnam War policy decisions by civilian leaders that went largely unchallenged by the chiefs of staff. In Schake’s view, McMaster’s book implies that the military leadership of the time should have been more public in expressing their disagreement with the president and the secretary of defense. Schake disagrees, arguing that the president and secretary of defense allowed the joint chiefs to make their case during the policy formation stage, but ultimately rejected their advice because it was inconsistent with the administration’s domestic priorities. All of this, in her view, was consistent with the president’s prerogative as the country’s elected civilian leader.

Schake is certainly right that civilian leaders must have the final say, even when their judgments prove to be mistaken. But McMaster’s thesis runs deeper than Schake suggests. Misrepresenting the costs of the war (and various other deceptions by President Lyndon Johnson, well covered in the literature) was more than just “crafting a political strategy” in conflict with military advice; it involved misleading Congress and the American people when they had little or no access to independent sources of reliable information. Is this a misuse of the military by a civilian leader that would harm civil-military relations? It doesn’t appear to fail Schake’s two-part test, which is a somewhat unsatisfying answer.

The book also covers a range of more recent civil-military controversies, including military leaders sharing their policy views publicly. In 2021, Maj. Gen. Patrick Donahoe responded to Tucker Carlson’s insulting of women’s service by providing a photo of him reenlisting a woman and saying Carlson was wrong. Schake argues that civilian Defense Department leadership should have spoken up instead because it was a divisive political issue. The Department of Army Inspector General investigated Donahoe and found that he had failed to display Army values for this post (and other messages). While insults are clearly unprofessional, it is less clear where the line is between what constitutes a “divisive political issue” and what is a matter for professional military expertise. Twitter disagreements with political TV personalities are not the right medium for such messages, but is defending the combat capabilities of members of the force, when backed up with facts, not a matter for professional military expertise?

Another example Schake offers is Gen. Mark Milley’s defense of critical race theory (CRT) appearing on military reading lists during a 2021 congressional hearing. If you remove CRT, would it not seem that the education of military members falls within the realm of military expertise? If being a “political issue” results in a topic’s being removed from the category of topics that fit within military expertise, the space in which military members can give their expertise will shrink as more and more aspects of life, and therefore military service, become politicized. An alternative answer might be not that they cannot give their views on topics within their military expertise but, rather, that they must be more circumspect about the venues in which they do so and the words they choose.

The book ends with a series of recommendations based on lessons learned, and they fall on the military side of the equation to implement—adopt George Marshall’s rule that politicians have a right to be wrong; be clear about the issue of professional expertise and respectfully decline to give views on anything outside of it; enforce military rules, even against top performers; when the law conflicts with the commander in chief, choose the law; reinforce the difference between the military and veterans; military leaders may appeal to Congress to advance their policy preferences as a means of “legalized insubordination”; and trust is what makes civil-military relations work best.

These recommendations might help our system pass Schake’s two-part test, but one might wonder if it might still fail the broader goal those tests are meant to achieve. At the beginning of the book, Schake makes two claims about the strength of civil-military relations in the United States. One is that there has never been an organized attempt by the U.S. military to overthrow the U.S. government. The other is that the military has never posed a threat to democracy. While the two are used somewhat interchangeably, the latter is considerably broader than the former. Her two-part test arguably measures whether the military threatens civilian control, but not whether the military might be used by civilian leaders to threaten democracy.

We should care that the military, as an institution, has never posed a threat to democracy. And we should want to understand why that is so and thus keep future threats minimal. The book ends with a teaser on this point—“the American system of civil-military relations will falter if we continue to rely on the military alone to prevent civil-military relations from becoming dangerously unbalanced.” Schake’s two-part test places the obligation fairly heavily on the military rather than on the civilian side of civil-military relations.

The more important question today appears to be: What are the obligations of the civilian leadership to the military which they control? Schake acknowledges that a problem could arise from an “unprincipled principal,” per the language of military ethics scholar Pauline Shanks Kaurin. In the introduction, Schake speculates about a situation in which Congress either cedes more of its constitutional authority to the president for partisan purposes, or governors advance partisan policies by offering National Guard units to other states or the federal government.

In another setting, Schake argued that “[t]here is virtually no one in the American military qualified to ascertain what lawful orders are democracy-corroding” and that the appropriate response to democracy-corroding orders is to make them unlawful. The critical takeaway Schake wants everyone to have is that, in these situations, as tempting as it is to turn to a professional force to fix a problem, military members are not the guardians of American democracy against the civilian officials whom Americans elect, directly or indirectly. Once the military, as an institution, takes on this role, it sets the United States on the same historical path other countries have followed, in which militaries threaten freedom rather than protect it.

Her reliance on the law to fully address the problem, however, is overly optimistic. The legal frameworks governing the use of the military, particularly domestically, are a confusing patchwork, and, in some cases, the exact boundaries are uncertain. Schake writes about the law in a straightforward manner, but the law is considerably less determinate than her presentation suggests. Unsettled debates about the constitutional and statutory powers of Congress and the president give rise to a greater future risk that the military will pose a threat to democracy, possibly through an unprincipled principal, than the book recognizes.

Schake writes that the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the military for law enforcement purposes “unless authorized by Congress, requested by a state legislature, or the president proclaiming the country is under invasion or there exists an insurrection requiring force to put down.” To be clear, the exact language of the act allows exceptions only by express authorization in the Constitution or an act of Congress. The law is less expansive yet more complex than she treats it. For example, the executive branch has also claimed a “military purpose” carve-out for roughly 50 years, providing that any action undertaken primarily to further a Department of Defense or foreign affairs function falls outside the scope of the Posse Comitatus Act. Courts have supported this military purpose doctrine in specific circumstances. And finally, in the sphere of the military and national security, Congress and the courts frequently accord significant deference to the president so that threats to the nation can be addressed quickly and fully.

We are seeing the law’s complexity come to the forefront in the nation’s capital. Washington, D.C., just passed the one-year mark of a National Guard deployment for a “crime emergency”/“beautification” effort, with 23 states, D.C., and two territories sending troops. The D.C. National Guard is operating under the command of the president (though this authority has been delegated to the Secretary of the Army), and troops from other states receive their operational orders from the D.C. National Guard. The result is a federal force (according to the government’s own legal argument), albeit not the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, or Space Force, and therefore not subject to the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act. Schake, reacting to the Los Angeles domestic deployment last year but still relevant today, correctly observes that the “Trump administration is test-driving a novel legal theory that you can circumvent the restrictions on domestic law enforcement by the American military.”

Reliance on military professionalism and the law is necessary but not sufficient for healthy civil-military relations. If the goal is truly not just that the military not become a threat to civilian control, but that it not be a threat to democracy more generally, then healthy civil-military relations should also be about appropriate norms on the civilian side of the equation and proper use of the military by civilian leaders.

When discussing the firing of several military leaders within the first month of President Trump’s second term, Schake emphasizes the necessity of the military accepting even unfair civilian decisions, because that is the test of subordination to civilian supremacy. But in cases when such firings are partisan in nature—that is, firing military officers not for lack of competency but for lack of political alignment—this would seem to encourage more partisan acts by military members in the future. If the real reason behind a large number of firings of senior officers was partisan, a president would have violated civil-military norms on the civilian side of the equation. Today, politicians from both parties find it to their short-term advantage to politicize the military in various ways, including by using it as a validator of their opinions. If political leaders continue to flout these norms regularly, it would be unreasonable to expect military professionalism to sustain norms that the civilian side systematically undermines.

Schake’s historical examples do give some insight into the appropriate norms for the civilian side. She describes the dangerous precedent set by Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and continued military enforcement of the suspension, even after the chief justice of the United States (riding circuit in Maryland) determined that only Congress, not the president, had the authority to suspend it. Lincoln persisted for two years after the decision, even though Congress had not legislated on the issue and provided the president the power to suspend habeas corpus for the duration of the war. So, for an almost two-year period, Schake concludes, the military chose to “obey the commander in chief rather than the law.”

The specifics of this example make it more complicated, but the conclusion even more important. Lincoln described suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in his message to Congress as permitting federal officials “to arrest and detain, without resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law.” Because availability of habeas was considered such a fundamental right, the Constitution allows only Congress to suspend it and only in very limited circumstances, namely, rebellion or invasion. In Congress’s 1861 special session and later sessions, most of the congressional debate was focused not on whether the president’s suspension was right or wrong (the congressional records from the time seem to indicate most thought it was right, even if views were split on the legality) but, rather, on the appropriate language to approve it after the fact and how to regulate its future suspension.

Congress did support the war effort in various other ways, such as through increased funding and recruitment, and on Aug. 6, 1861, legalized all previous acts of the president “respecting the army and navy” and “militia or volunteers from the States” since his inauguration on March 4. But Congress as a body stayed silent on the issue of habeas corpus suspension until 1863. Senior military leaders had to be aware, at least in general, that the issue had been discussed in Congress. Still, their correspondence and actions indicate that the generals paid little attention to the debate over which political branch had the final say. The nuance here, from a civil-military perspective, is that the senior military leaders did not claim emergency powers for themselves and instead ensured they had clear orders from their commander in chief. Under Schake’s two-part test for healthy civil-military relations, the situation would appear to pass while failing to serve the test’s underlying purpose: gauging whether the military poses a threat to democracy.

Another striking example in the book ends with the military leader siding with Congress. President Andrew Johnson suspended Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in 1867, and Grant, then commanding general of the Army, begrudgingly became secretary of war ad interim. Under the law at the time, the Tenure of Office Act, the Senate voted not to concur with Stanton’s suspension, which effectively reinstated him. Grant could potentially have been subject to criminal penalties for continuing in the role. Johnson offered to pay the fine and serve the prison sentence if Grant were convicted. Nonetheless, Grant complied with the Senate’s decision. This chain of events, including Johnson’s subsequent removal of Stanton, led to Johnson’s impeachment, but not conviction.

The interesting angle addressed indirectly through these two preceding examples and the other stories Schake tells is the interplay between the two political branches of government, both of which exercise authority over the military. It is perhaps clearest what a military leader should do when one of the two civilian branches with control over the military is breaking the law, while the other is asking the military to follow the law. Real life, however, is seldom so clear-cut.

Schake writes that “[s]erving military members have a constitutional responsibility to provide Congress their military judgments.” Although no explicit constitutional provision imposes such a responsibility, her argument makes one critical point that much of the civil-military conversation today misses: Civilian control of the military is not just presidential; it is congressional as well. Congress needs access to military information and professional military judgments from senior military leaders to exercise its Article I responsibilities.

According to notes from a 1966 White House meeting, President Lyndon Johnson did not want Congress to have accurate figures or plans related to Vietnam. Yet, while the joint chiefs and other military leaders were not willing to go public with their different views on how to prosecute the war (which is a good thing, as Schake explains), they did give their honest military opinions in congressional hearings when asked to testify. A Senate subcommittee held closed hearings in 1967 and found a “sharp difference of opinion between the civilian authority and the top-level military witnesses.” While recognizing civilian control of the military as one of the “great bulwarks” of the U.S. system of government, the subcommittee report concluded that greater weight should be given to recommendations for military actions from high-ranking military experts. This example underscores a broader point—military professionalism can protect civilian control without requiring military deference to one civilian branch at the expense of the other.

Schake convincingly demonstrates the critical role of military professionalism in protecting civil-military relations throughout American history. Bad examples exist, presidents tolerated their behavior, ambiguous legal authorities create unclear restraints, and political actors have sought to use the military to their partisan benefit. But the negative has not become precedent, and Schake’s history shows the extraordinary importance of our military’s ingrained professionalism.

If the ultimate goal is to keep the military from posing a threat to democracy, though, military professionalism alone cannot sustain healthy civil-military relations. A corresponding civilian professionalism is necessary as well. Military leaders are constrained by norms even when they believe the decisions of civilian leaders are wrong. Civilian leaders must likewise be constrained by norms governing how they exercise their authority over the military.

To read more CLICK HERE

Pennsylvania overdose death prosecutions target fellow drug users instead of high-level dealers

2026-10-15T09:45:58.982-04:00

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to add new legal protections for defendants accused of providing drugs that caused a deadly overdose, reported The Associated Press and SpotlightPA.

The decision from the state’s highest court addressed a frequent criticism of overdose death prosecutions in Pennsylvania: that they target fellow drug users instead of high-level dealers.

In a majority opinion issued Tuesday, justices upheld convictions in two separate drug delivery resulting in death cases, saying state law has a broad definition of “delivery” and “does not differentiate between drug dealers and co-users for purposes of delivery of illegal narcotics.”

Despite ruling against the defendants, Justice Daniel McCaffery said the court “cannot ignore the fact that” the “proposed defense makes sense — some believe drug dealers should be punished more harshly than drug users.”

“Nevertheless, this type of policy determination is for the General Assembly, not the courts,” McCaffery added.

Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, Sallie Updyke Mundy, and P. Kevin Brobson joined that majority opinion.

In a concurring opinion, Justice David Wecht also distinguished between the roles of justices and state lawmakers.

“The General Assembly does not violate the Constitution when it violates common sense,” Wecht said. “It is undoubtedly true that the DDRD statute was meant to target drug dealers, not drug users,” he continued, referring to drug delivery resulting in death.

But Wecht said “the spirit of the law is in considerable tension with its text” and “it is the latter that binds us.” Chief Justice Debra Todd joined his concurring opinion.

Spotlight PA reported on the two cases earlier this year that highlighted the emotionally charged issue in Pennsylvania, where supplying drugs in fatal overdoses has led to hundreds of state prison sentences.

Pennsylvania is known as a national leader for bringing this type of criminal charge, but prosecution rates vary widely between counties and grieving families are divided over whether these prosecutions do more harm than good, Spotlight PA has found. Supporters say these cases bring needed accountability, while critics say the fear of spending decades in prison discourages people from calling for help if someone overdoses.

Cases with a drug delivery resulting in death charge, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 40 years, were filed more than 680 times from 2021 through 2025.

The two cases before the state Supreme Court focused on the question of what happens when people “jointly and constructively acquire and use drugs.” Justices considered whether that should be a defense for drug delivery resulting in death charges and similar offenses — and if so, whether that’s sufficient for an acquittal or entitles the defense to a jury instruction that addresses the issue of joint possession.

Both cases, which were consolidated together for Pennsylvania Supreme Court arguments, involved prosecutions that occurred in York County.

York County District Attorney Tim Barker previously told Spotlight PA the evidence in the cases went “well beyond any characterization of a minimal ‘sharing’ of drugs.” Barker described how the office seeks “rehabilitation and diversion where appropriate,” but “will always seek accountability for criminal conduct that harms victims, especially when the actions cause the death of another.”

Anthony Tambourino, an attorney for the defendants, had advocated for recognizing the “common sense reality” of how people use drugs and said the drug delivery resulting in death law was “not meant to criminalize every drug handoff among co-users.”

Tambourino works for the York County Office of Conflict Counsel, which serves clients who can’t be represented by the local public defender’s office due to a conflict of interest. He has emphasized “that my views on the matter are my own and not reflective of” the county government.

C. Melissa Owen, an attorney and president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, was disappointed with the court’s decision.

“It is unthinkable that joint drug use can be made a homicide,” she told Spotlight PA. “We anticipate this ruling will further discourage individuals from seeking help during an overdose, causing the very harm the law purports to prevent.”

Past efforts to limit the use of drug delivery resulting charges have not gone far in the state legislature. Some bills currently pending in the General Assembly would give prosecutors more time to file these charges.

To read more CLICK HERE

Florida man executed, he killed his cellmate to get the death penalty

2026-10-14T09:35:02.720-04:00

The 31st Execution of 2026

A Florida prisoner, James Robertson, 63, who said he killed his cellmate specifically to get on death row was executed October 13, 2026, nearly 18 years after the attack, reported The Associated Press.

James Robertson, 63, declined to offer any last words before receiving a three-drug injection and was pronounced dead about 10 minutes later. It was a stark contrast to the failed execution of Christa Pike in Tennessee two weeks ago, where she was rushed to the hospital after surviving two lethal doses of pentobarbital.

Robertson’s execution, the first in Florida since Pike, comes at a time of escalating attention on the death penalty in the United States. The Pentagon said last week that it would livestream the firing squad execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, drawing criticism from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

“Florida has a sound lethal injection process and protocol,” Jordan Kirkland, a state Department of Corrections spokesperson, said at a news conference before the execution. Although he couldn’t speak to Tennessee’s lethal injection procedure, he said Florida would make sure its process was “humane and dignified.”

Florida executes people by injecting them with a sedative, a paralytic, and a drug that stops the heart, according to the Department of Corrections.

Robertson wanted to be executed

Robertson had pleaded guilty to first-degree murder for strangling Frank Hart while he slept in 2008, and waived all appeals. He told investigators that he did it so he wouldn’t have to live out his days in prison.

Hart was killed just eight days before he was due to be released, his daughter, Rebecca Hart, told reporters at Florida State Prison. She stressed that her father was not just a piece of Robertson’s story. “When someone you love is taken from you in such a violent way, the world keeps moving, even when a part of yours feels like it has stopped,” she read. “Other people go on with their lives, but you carry your loss into every tomorrow.”

Robertson was 17 years old when he went to prison in 1980 for burglary and assault. Years of convictions for escape, battery and weapons while in prison kept adding time to his total sentence. Hart had been sent to prison in 2003 following a sexual battery conviction.

A rare reprieve leaves another Florida prisoner on death row

Robertson was supposed to be one of two executions carried out by Florida on Tuesday, but Gov. Ron DeSantis withdrew a death warrant last week for William Lee Thompson. The Republican governor did not provide a reason but had temporarily stayed the execution last month pending a psychiatric evaluation.

Records show this was the first time DeSantis withdrew a death warrant. Thompson, 74, will remain on death row, and a new death warrant could be signed in the future. His attorneys say he has dementia and failing health, and they want him transferred to a medical facility.

DeSantis is the third Florida governor to sign a death warrant for Thompson. Bob Graham and Bob Martinez both scheduled executions for Thompson in the 1980s, but years of appeals and stays allowed him to avoid the electric chair, the state’s method of execution at the time.

Thompson was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping and sexual battery in the 1976 killing of 23-year-old Sally Ivester.

Florida has the nation’s busiest death chamber

DeSantis oversaw 19 executions in 2025, more than any other Florida governor in a single year since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Robertson was the state’s 17th execution of 2026, with two more already scheduled, not counting Thompson.

DeSantis, who leaves office in January, has made few public comments about the unprecedented number of executions but explained previously that his goal is to bring justice to victims’ families who have waited decades for the death sentences to be carried out.

William Reaves, 77, is scheduled to be executed on Oct. 20, followed by Jesse Guardado, 64, on Nov. 5. Reaves was convicted of fatally shooting a deputy after dropping a gun in front of the law enforcement officer in 1986. Guardado was convicted of robbing and killing a woman in order to buy drugs in 2004.

A total of 47 people were executed in the U.S. in 2025. Besides leading all other states last year, Florida has carried out more than half the 31 total executions in the U.S. so far this year. In July, Florida executed two prisoners in one day, the first state in nearly a decade to do so.

To read more CLICK HERE

ALARM: Trump's FBI searched home of Congresswoman and political opponent three weeks before election

2026-10-13T16:18:19.702-04:00

In a statement on X on Monday, Congresswoman Omar called the search an “attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement.”

Federal agents on Monday searched the home of Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a startling escalation in a criminal investigation that brings renewed focus to the frequent target of Trump administration derision in the final weeks of her reelection bid, reported The Associated Press.

The search of the Minnesota congresswoman’s home so close to next month’s midterm contests that will determine control of the House and the Senate was swiftly condemned by top Democrats in Congress, who raised questions about the timing given longstanding Justice Department protocol to avoid overt investigative steps involving political candidates in the direct run-up to an election. Omar, an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump, said she was being targeted as one of the Republican’s “political enemies.”

To read more CLICK HERE

NYC Mayor Mamdani pledges to reform police use of force

2026-10-12T10:17:42.481-04:00

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani ordered the police to conduct a review of their use-of-force policies, which were central to an oversight board’s decision to recommend excessive force charges against the officer, Salvatore Alongi, in the death of the 19-year-old Win Rozario in 2024, reported The New York Times.

“When the government uses force against a New Yorker, the standard for accountability must be at its highest,” Mr. Mamdani said in a statement. “Every New Yorker deserves to know that force will be used lawfully, carefully and only when necessary.”

To read more CLICK HERE

It is a crime to send federal troops or armed federal law enforcement agents to any polling place

2026-10-11T10:23:35.692-04:00

With the mid-term elections approaching, questions have arisen over whether the Trump administration might attempt to station federal troops at polling places. As the Brennan Center and many others have pointed out, this would be clearly illegal: Section 592 of Title 18 of the United States Code criminalizes deploying federal troops or armed federal law enforcement agents to any polling place, and multiple other federal criminal and civil laws bar military interference in an election, reported Just Security. Such laws buttress the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits federal military participation in civilian law enforcement except where Congress has expressly authorized it.

These laws, most of which have been in force for more than 150 years, unmistakably convey Congress’s intent to bar any kind of military interference in American elections. Even so, in 1968, the Office of Legal Counsel asserted in a short, conclusory memo that Section 592’s prohibition on troops at the polls does not apply if the president has invoked the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act is the most important statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, allowing the president to use federal military forces to execute the law in certain emergency situations.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino joins Chris Stewart on Law and Crime's 'On the Case'

2026-10-10T19:39:11.804-04:00

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Another proud moment for the USA, "War" Secretary Hegseth wants to bring back public executions

2026-10-09T10:12:40.876-04:00

The last public execution in the U.S. was a hanging in Owensboro, KY in 1936. 20,000 people showed up. The U.S. was ridiculed internationally—and public executions stopped for 90 years. I wrote in my book The Executioner's Toll, about the execution of Rainey Bethea, a black man, who was hanged for the rape of a white woman. Now the U.S. military wants to bring public executions back.

The New York Times reported that the Army officer convicted in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting would be executed in public, a practice that ended in the United States nearly a century ago and is most commonly carried out in a handful of countries, including Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon said in a statement that the military execution, scheduled for Dec. 3, would also be broadcast via livestream. Such a broadcast has little precedent, and releasing video of executions is most often associated with extremist militant groups like the Islamic State.

The announcement adds to the growing spectacle around the planned execution of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who killed 13 people and wounded 32 others when he brought a personal handgun onto the grounds of Fort Hood, Texas. The rampage was the deadliest shooting at an American military base and sent shock waves through the U.S. military.

There are few countries that hold public executions. The human rights group Amnesty International has highlighted some cases in which public executions in Iran and Saudi Arabia have been filmed by bystanders.

To read more CLICK HERE

Texas executed man for 2000 murder caught on surveillance video

2026-10-08T20:39:18.577-04:00

The 30th Execution of 2026

A Texas man who fatally shot a convenience store clerk was put to death October 7, 2026, becoming the 30th person executed in the U.S. this year and the first since Tennessee’s failed attempt to administer a lethal injection to Christa Pike a week ago, reported The Associated Press.

Jamaal Howard, 46, was pronounced dead at 8:03 p.m. after receiving a fatal dose of pentobarbital at the state prison in Huntsville. He was convicted of killing Vickie Swartout, 42, in a 2000 store robbery caught on surveillance video.

Asked by the warden if he had a final statement, Howard apologized profusely to some members of his victim’s family, who watched through a window just feet from the death chamber.

“I wish that you accept my apology and I wish for your forgiveness,” he said, shortly before the injection got underway. “I’m sorry for what happened. I wish you can learn to forgive me one of these days.”

He also thanked his friends and family and said he loved them, adding he was “in a good state of mind to find peace and the Lord, so I thank y’all.” He concluded with: “Hey, enjoy life, and peace to y’all.”

Man took a few breaths and gasped as the drugs began flowing

As the pentobarbital began taking effect, Howard took a couple of breaths and gasped. He then began making snoring sounds, coughed and resumed the snoring sounds, each time the sound becoming quieter. Within about 30 seconds, all movement stopped.

He was pronounced dead 19 minutes later.

His sister was among witnesses watching through a window from an adjacent room and became distraught, exclaiming several times: “Get me out of here.” She was assisted by corrections officers in exiting the witness room.

Texas has executed seven people so far in 2026, including Howard, and plans two more executions later this year.

Howard’s attorneys unsuccessfully sought to block the execution by arguing that he was intellectually disabled and that he faced risks similar to those in Pike’s case because both states use pentobarbital for lethal injections.

Pike’s lawyers continue to seek more information about what went wrong after the 50-year-old woman survived two doses of pentobarbital on Sept. 30. Her lawyers said she was unconscious at a hospital after the attempt but was awake and speaking by Tuesday.

Store clerk’s killing was caught on surveillance video

Howard was convicted of capital murder in the killing of Swartout, who was shot once in the chest during the robbery. Evidence presented at trial included surveillance video showing Howard shooting Swartout.

Howard, who was 20 at the time, took $114 and a carton of cigarettes from the store in Silsbee, a small, rural town about 100 miles (160 kilometers) northeast of Houston, according to court records.

A flurry of late appeals failed to stop the execution

In bidding to halt Howard’s execution, his attorneys had filed a motion hours earlier before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals raising concerns about the quality of Texas’ execution drugs. The court denied that request and a second filing involving the drugs without comment.

His attorneys also argued unsuccessfully to the U.S. Supreme Court that Howard’s execution should be halted because he was intellectually disabled. The Supreme Court in 2002 had barred the execution of intellectually disabled people, though it gave states some discretion in determining such disabilities.

The state told the court that Howard’s lawyers did not present evidence that would show he meets the requirements for a claim of intellectual disability.

The high court late Wednesday declined to intervene, without comment, clearing the way for the execution.

Florida leads the nation in executions this year

Florida has carried out 16 executions so far this year, the most of any state. Most states that allow executions use lethal injection as their primary method.

To read more CLICK HERE

U.S. Military schedules December execution for Fort Hood massacre

2026-10-07T09:54:16.800-04:00

Nidal Malik Hasan, a former Army officer and psychiatrist who killed 13 people and injured 32 others during a mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009, will be executed by a U.S. Army firing squad, the Pentagon announced, reported Military Times.

“Secretary of War (Defense) Pete Hegseth has recommended — and President Donald J. Trump has approved — death by U.S. Army firing squad for convicted terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan, the jihadist who opened fire on unarmed American soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009,” Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell announced. “He killed 13 people and wounded 32 others while shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ during the attack.

“The Secretary of the Army will set the time and place of the execution,” he continued. “Judgement day for Hasan has finally come.”

If Hasan’s execution is indeed carried out by a firing squad, it would mark the first such case for the service since Jan. 31, 1945, when Pvt. Eddie D. Slovik was executed by a U.S. Army firing squad in France for desertion during World War II.

The last death sentence carried out by the U.S. military was in 1961, when Army Pvt. John Bennett was executed by hanging at the gallows in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, after he was convicted of raping and attempting to kill a young girl.

Hasan, who was born in northern Virginia, walked into a Fort Hood readiness processing center on Nov. 5, 2009, and opened fire using a semi-automatic handgun.

Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier.

Former Army Staff Sgt. Patrick Zeigler, a two-time combat veteran, was shot four times in the attack and spent nearly a year recovering in various hospitals.

“He looked me straight in the eyes as he pointed the gun at me, and a split second later, I’m on the floor with a hole in my head,” he told the Killeen Daily Herald in 2023.

At his court-martial, Hasan, now 56, admitted to the shooting, and in 2013 said he carried out the attack in support of the Taliban.

At the time, Hasan requested a delay in court proceedings so he could ready a new legal strategy that would show he acted “in defense of others.”

Asked by presiding Judge Col. Tara Osborn who he was defending, Hasan replied, “The leadership of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban.”

Hasan was convicted by a military jury in August 2013, which recommended he be sentenced to death.

He was subsequently transferred to Fort Leavenworth, where he has been incarcerated on death row.

To read more CLICK HERE

Hudson: 'An effective public defense system strengthens public safety'

2026-10-06T09:27:54.066-04:00

Keisha Hudson of the Defenders Association of Philadelphia writes in the Pennsylvania Capital-Star:

The constitutional right to counsel is one of the cornerstones of American democracy. But a constitutional right without adequate funding is merely a promise on paper.

After years of chronic underfunding, the Defender Association of Philadelphia has been forced to make painful staffing reductions and reduce services that thousands of Pennsylvanians rely upon every year.

The recent service reductions in Philadelphia should serve as a warning to the commonwealth: if the largest public defender office in Pennsylvania is reducing staffing to critical court programs — despite years of operational improvements, grant funding, and careful financial stewardship — the problem is structural underinvestment.

These cuts are the predictable consequence of a system that has failed to invest in one of its most basic constitutional obligations.

This is not simply Philadelphia’s problem.

It is Pennsylvania’s.

While public attention mainly focuses on police, prosecutors, and prisons, public defenders are equally essential to a functioning justice system. An effective public defense system strengthens public safety.

Defenders help identify people who need treatment rather than incarceration, reduce unnecessary pretrial detention, negotiate resolutions that hold people accountable while promoting rehabilitation, and ensure court proceedings move efficiently.

Every part of the justice system functions better when public defenders have the resources to do their jobs well.

Pennsylvania remains an outlier nationally when it comes to funding public defense. For decades, it was one of the only states that did not provide recurring indigent defense funding, forcing counties to shoulder nearly the entire cost of this constitutional mandate.

Although the commonwealth has finally begun investing in public defense, the current statewide appropriation of just $7.5 million is nowhere near enough to meet the need.

While local governments in New York and New Jersey still carry significant fiscal responsibilities for public defense, they still invest more than Pennsylvania. Neighboring states like Delaware, Maryland and Massachusetts assume primary responsibility for funding statewide public defense systems.

These states invest tens or hundreds of millions of dollars annually to ensure constitutional representation, regardless of where someone lives.

Pennsylvania’s fractional investment creates a patchwork system, where justice depends largely on local resources instead of constitutional guarantees. In our Commonwealth, the quality of representation — and ultimately, access to justice — can vary dramatically depending on zip code.

That is not what the Constitution promises.

Pennsylvania has already acknowledged that indigent defense is a statewide responsibility by appropriating state funds for the first time.

Gov. Josh Shapiro and the General Assembly should move the state toward a funding model that reflects making an investment in public defense a priority.

The commonwealth should move toward a funding model that reflects the true cost of providing effective representation in all 67 counties — not one that leaves local governments to shoulder nearly the entire burden.

Public defense is not a discretionary government program. It is a constitutional mandate.

We would never expect police departments, prosecutors’ offices, or the courts to fulfill their responsibilities without adequate funding. We should not expect public defenders to do so either.

The Defender Association of Philadelphia’s decision to reduce some services is more than a local budget story. It is a warning that Pennsylvania’s constitutional promise is becoming increasingly difficult to keep.

The question is not whether we can afford to invest in public defense. The question is whether we can afford not to.

A justice system is measured not only by how it prosecutes crime, but by how faithfully it protects the rights guaranteed to every person.

Pennsylvania has an opportunity to demonstrate that those rights are more than words on paper.

To read more CLICK HERE

Federal Judge: Flock Cameras 'a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance'

2026-10-05T11:23:49.779-04:00

A federal judge in Oklahoma ruled Thursday that a police officer violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a woman accused of meth trafficking when he searched her license plate in Flock’s automated license plate reader system simply because her license plate was from California, then used her travel history as part of the reason to search her car. The judge’s opinion is one of the first times a federal judge has decided Flock searches can be unconstitutional, and suggested that Flock’s network is “a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance,” reported 404 Media.

The officer’s “use of the ALPR Systems was an Unconstitutional Warrantless Search,” and “was not supported by probable cause, and it was done without a warrant in violation of [the defendant’s] Fourth Amendment rights,” the judge, Sara Hill, wrote, implying that the law enforcement officer should have obtained a warrant before searching for the vehicle in Flock’s system. There are currently more than a hundred thousand warrantless searches of the Flock system every month, according to audit logs viewed by 404 Media. Hill's decision will not set a binding precedent and there are several other cases throughout the nation considering the legality of warrantless ALPR searches.

Hill argued that previous judge opinions saying Flock searches were not a Fourth Amendment violation because they track cars in public do not consider the context that Flock’s nationwide network is quickly “approaching dragnet-type law enforcement practice,” and that courts should update their understanding of the technology moving forward.

The circumstances of the court case are really interesting and highlight how commonplace Flock searches have become for police, and the depth of the information they can reveal. In May, a Tulsa County Deputy Sheriff named Freddie Alaniz was parked along the side of the highway in Oklahoma when he saw a Mazda SUV driven by a woman named Melisa Kyle with a California license plate pass by. “Alaniz then pulled his vehicle on the highway to follow the Mazda for no apparent reason other than the fact that it had a California license plate. Alaniz also ran a query on the Flock system for the California license plate number on the Mazda SUV,” Hill wrote. Alaniz then ostensibly pulled Kyle over for changing lanes without a turn signal.

To read more CLICK HERE

University punishment meted out to the Cornell 7

2026-10-04T10:16:18.661-04:00

The lightest punishment called for writing a paper and completing training. The most severe was expulsion from the school for the Cornell 7, reported The New York Times.

After a woman attending Cornell University accused seven fraternity members of sexually assaulting her in 2024, the university convened a closed proceeding to determine what had occurred and whether those men should face discipline.

Since then, the sanctions imposed on each of the men, and the reasoning behind those decisions, have remained secret. The school has said little.

But detailed summaries of the punishments obtained by The New York Times provide the first look at how Cornell administrators apportioned blame for the alcohol and drug-fueled gathering that the woman has said left her shattered and degraded.

Two of the fraternity members were expelled. Another, who had already graduated, was barred from campus. Two more were suspended. The remaining men were handed lighter punishments, the summaries show.

All of them have denied any wrongdoing, and the Tompkins County district attorney declined to prosecute in 2024. None of the men have been charged with a crime. Their fraternity, Chi Phi, has been banned from campus.

Still, since allegations from the woman who has become known as Jane Doe surfaced in a lawsuit on Sept. 16, they have touched off intense anger over sexual abuse on campus and why more is not done to punish those responsible. Others have criticized what they see as a rush to judge the seven men involved.

In her lawsuit, Jane Doe claimed that, from the start of her encounter involving the seven fraternity members, she was incapable of consent because she was severely intoxicated. The lawsuit inflamed particular ire by stating that the defendants were all “afforded the opportunity to mitigate their conduct by submitting essays to Cornell,” an assertion Cornell has said did not accurately reflect what occurred.

Combined with more than 1,000 pages of interview transcripts, police reports and other records gathered by Cornell investigators and previously obtained by The Times, the discipline summaries show that the university based its decisions on a broad and complicated body of evidence.

In the end, the punishments handed out by the three-member panel, which met on Zoom over 12 days in May 2025, varied widely. The panel, which enforces federal civil rights at the university under Title IX provisions, did not conclude that Jane Doe was sexually assaulted by all the men she had accused, according to the discipline summaries.

The university investigative files outline in excruciating detail what the fraternity members were accused of doing on the night of Oct. 19, 2024.

It was Matthew Ingalls whom Jane Doe originally went to visit at the Chi Phi fraternity house at about 11 p.m. She walked there alone from a bar to see him, with her intoxication level from drinking through the evening at about a 5 out of 10, she told investigators.

After she arrived, Mr. Ingalls asked her if she wanted to have a threesome with Jonathan Newell, Jane Doe said. During that encounter, she said, the men gave her ketamine and alcohol. Eventually, other men engaged in sex acts with her without her consent and while she was incapacitated, she said.

To read more CLICK HERE

Supreme Court to hear issue of indefinite detention of immigrants

2026-10-03T08:40:16.412-04:00

The Supreme Court agreed to review the Trump administration’s policy of indefinitely detaining immigrants who crossed the border illegally years ago, signaling the court plans to weigh in on major pieces of President Trump’s aggressive deportation agenda as it begins its new term on Monday.

The policy is a departure from past practice, when such migrants were generally allowed an opportunity to seek release after a hearing before a judge.

The justices previously announced that they would fast-track a separate case testing the administration's policy of deporting immigrants to countries where they have no ties, including nations that have faced allegations of human rights abuses.

Between the two cases, the justices will consider the legality of some of the most controversial aspects of the Trump administration’s efforts to rapidly expel millions of migrants living in the United States.

The justices also added two other cases to the docket of issues they will hear and decide by next June.

One is a Kentucky case about whether a federal religious discrimination law protects a group of Catholic priests who want to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary over neighbors’ objections. The other is a divorce dispute over military benefits originating in North Dakota.

The immigration case the court accepted on Thursday involved noncitizens who entered the United States illegally but had been living in the country for years. For decades, such people could be released on bond pending additional court proceedings, so long as they were not found to be a threat to public safety or a flight risk.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino discusses botched execution on New Nation

2026-10-02T11:39:31.665-04:00

The execution that wasn't meant to be--Christa Pike survives two lethal doses in Tennessee

2026-10-01T15:14:36.435-04:00

Christa Pike's attorney said she is still alive a day after she survived two doses of lethal injection drugs on Wednesday. The inmate is in critical condition and is receiving life-saving medical care, her legal team told reporters Thursday afternoon, reported Yahoo.news.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee has since paused executions in the state.

Pike, 50, remained alive and snoring loudly after being given two doses of pentobarbital, her attorneys and other witnesses said. She was subsequently taken to a hospital.

Lee ordered "a comprehensive, third-party review to determine exactly what occurred" and said that another scheduled execution later this year had been paused.

"There are very few answers this morning. It's very early," Lee told reporters Thursday morning. "There are a lot of questions. The people of our state deserve to have those questions answered.

"This is a tragedy. There is no one who wanted what happened last night to happen. It's deeply disturbing to me that this has happened in this state."

May Martinez, the mother of Pike's victim, Colleen Slemmer, told NBC News the execution attempt had been a "mess," adding, "They didn't say anything, and then, all of a sudden, they asked all the victims to leave. We didn't know anything until we got up to the office and saw the commissioner. And he said that it didn't work ... and she's on her way to the hospital."

In a statement posted on Facebook, Sen. Marsha Blackburn called for the state to return to the electric chair as a means of execution. "This situation is tragic," she said. "Christa Pike should have been executed long ago. Now, this botched process is extending the pain for the family of Colleen Slemmer. While there should be a thorough review of what happened and why the process failed, the answer is simple: bring back the electric chair and deliver justice for these victims swiftly."

Pike had been scheduled for execution at 10 a.m. Wednesday for killing Slemmer in 1995, at the age of 18. She would have been the first woman executed in Tennessee in more than 200 years.

An appeals court stopped the lethal injection just an hour before it was to start, a stay that was subsequently overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Media witnesses said officials raised the curtains to the execution chamber at 7:27 p.m., showing Pike strapped to a gurney. "I'm going to leave this world the way I spent most of my life, and that is in love," she said in her "last" words.

However, Pike remained conscious after the first dose. Nashville Banner reporter Steven Hale said she lifted her head off the gurney at 7:54 p.m. She also reportedly asked prison officials if her arm was supposed to feel that way.

Tori Gessner, a journalist with WKRN News 2 in Nashville, said Pike was seen pointing at her arm and asking, "Does this happen like that?"

By 8:26 p.m., witnesses reported that the second dose of pentobarbital had been administered.

Pike continued to be heard snoring behind the closed curtain until the microphone was cut off at 8:53 p.m. At that time, an announcement was made to escort media witnesses out of the area.

To read more CLICK HERE

Florida executes 77-year-old man for 1995 murder--the state's 16th execution of the year

2026-09-30T09:52:30.572-04:00

The 29th Execution of 2026

A 77-year-old Florida man was put to death Tuesday for a deadly hammer attack on a woman decades ago, becoming the 16th person executed this year in the nation’s busiest death chamber, reported The Associated Press.

Curtis Wilkie Beasley was pronounced dead at 6:12 p.m. following a three-drug injection at Florida State Prison near Starke. He was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery and grand theft auto in the 1995 killing of Carolyn Monfort at her home south of Orlando.

The death chamber curtain opened at 6 p.m. with Beasley already strapped to a gurney with an IV in his arm. A spiritual adviser sat at his feet, remaining there throughout the execution.

When a warden asked whether he wished to make a final statement, Beasley said, “I want to apologize for all the mistakes I made.”

The execution began immediately afterward. Beasley breathed heavily as the drugs began flowing. His labored breathing eventually subsided, and the warden checked Beasley’s eyes and shouted his name, but he did not respond.

A medic entered the chamber at 6:11 p.m. and declared Beasley dead soon afterward.

No relatives issued any public statements afterward and it was not apparent whether any of the victim’s family had witnessed the execution.

Last week, the Florida Supreme Court rejected arguments that executing a man of Beasley’s age who was suffering from cognitive decline would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene Tuesday. Beasley was the seventh Florida prisoner over 70 to be executed this year.

Beasley also was the 29th person — all of them men — executed in the U.S. this year. On Wednesday Tennessee plans to execute a woman for the first time in 200 years. Christa Pike, 50, is scheduled to receive a lethal injection for killing a classmate in a jealous rage when both were teenagers.

Arrested while working under a fake name

Court records show Beasley had been staying at Monfort’s home in Dundee in August 1995 while he was pressure-washing and painting nearby apartments owned by her son-in-law. Monfort’s daughter went to the woman’s home after being unable to reach her for two days and found her body in a blood-splattered laundry room.

Monfort had suffered multiple blunt-force injuries to the head. Investigators found a bloody hammer head wrapped in a towel nearby.

Authorities began searching for Beasley after a witness reported seeing him driving what turned out to be Monfort’s car. Investigators determined that he had traveled to Miami and later moved to Alabama, where he was arrested while working under a false name for an electrical company. In 1998, Beasley was convicted and sentenced to death.

Florida has conducted more than half of all U.S. executions this year

Florida is approaching last year’s total of 19 executions, a record in the state since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. In July, Florida executed two prisoners in one day, the first state in nearly a decade to do so.

To read more CLICK HERE

Two more executions are scheduled this year although Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who leaves office in January, has temporarily paused the next one.

William Lee Thompson, 74, is scheduled to be executed Oct. 13 for raping and fatally beating a woman at a Florida motel in 1976. After a doctor recently determined Thompson might have dementia, DeSantis ordered a panel of three psychiatrists to examine him and advise if he is competent to be executed.

DeSantis issued similar stays in 2023 and 2025 though both executions proceeded after evaluations.

William Reaves, 77, is scheduled to be executed on Oct. 20. He was convicted of fatally shooting a deputy outside a convenience store in 1986.

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