States make it a felony to bring illegals across their borders

Alabama lawmakers have passed legislation that would make it a felony to knowingly bring someone into the state who is in the U.S. illegally, echoing similar bills nationwide that could restrict domestic travel for some immigrants, reported The Associated Press.

The legislation given final approval Wednesday protects “not only the citizens of Alabama but also the people that are immigrating here legally and doing everything the right way,” said the bill’s Republican sponsor, Sen. Wes Kitchens.

The measure carves out exemptions for medical professionals such as ambulance drivers and employees for law firms, educators, churches or charitable organizations carrying out “non-commercial” tasks. The bill also outlines a process for law enforcement to determine whether a person who is arrested is in the country legally. It now goes to Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, who has 10 days to sign the legislation or else it fails by a pocket veto.

Alabama joins at least nine other states that have considered legislation this year that would create crimes of transporting immigrants who are unlawfully in the U.S., according to an Associated Press analysis using the bill-tracking software Plural. It’s one of many recent bills passed by conservative statehouses seeking to aid President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigration.

Activists say Alabama could end up ensnaring people who provide transportation across state lines for essential services, such federal immigration court hearings in New Orleans and Atlanta, mandatory trips to out-of-state consulates and visits to family.

Jordan Stallworth, 38, works as a civic engagement coordinator for the Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice and lives in Wedowee, Alabama, a rural town of about 800 people that is just a 20-minute drive from Georgia. His wife has relatives living without legal status in both states and he often assists family members and other immigrants in the community with transportation.

Recently, he drove a family member lacking legal status to the maternity ward in Carrollton, Georgia, 35 miles (56 kilometers) away, since the local hospital doesn’t have one. Stallworth worries that similar trips will be criminalized.

“I’m not gonna sit here and somebody’s dying in front of me just to have a baby — I’m not gonna sit here and just let her die, family or not,” Stallworth said.

Federal law already makes it a crime to knowingly transport someone who is in the U.S. illegally. That law has been used in border areas against drivers picking up people who illegally cross into the U.S. But it has not historically been used for minor things like giving someone a ride to the grocery store, said Kathleen Campbell Walker, a longtime immigration attorney in El Paso, Texas.

But immigrant advocates are watching to see whether that changes under Trump.

“The likelihood of that being enforced is higher now because of the focus on removing undocumented people from the United States,” Walker said.

To read more CLICK HERE

SCOTUS Supreme Court Deals New Blow to President Trump on Immigration

The Supreme Court on Friday denied the Trump administration's request to swiftly resume deportations of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime law, according to Newsweek.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices rejected the emergency appeal filed by administration lawyers seeking to remove Venezuelan men accused of gang affiliations, an allegation the administration says qualifies them for expedited deportation under the rarely used 1798 statute.

President Donald Trump quickly took aim the decision on Truth Social. "THE SUPREME COURT WON'T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!" he posted Friday afternoon.

Newsweek reached out to the U.S. Department of Justice via contact form and the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the original suit, via email for comment.

Why It Matters

President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) in March, on the basis that the United States is under alien invasion due to immigration. The order was aimed at alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, allowing for swift removals without court hearings.

The Court had previously paused AEA deportations to El Salvador's high-security CECOT prison in a late-night order last month, temporarily blocking removals from a detention center in North Texas.

Friday's decision, in which conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority, also related to those being held in Texas. Conservative justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch joined the liberal justices in the unsigned order.

In their decision, the justices sent the case back to an appeals court to decide on the underlying issue of the use of the Alien Enemies Act, while calling out the federal government over the time frame given to plaintiffs to launch legal challenges to their imminent deportations.

"Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster," the unsigned ruling said.

At least three federal judges have said Trump was improperly using the AEA to speed deportations of people the administration says are Venezuelan gang members.

On Tuesday, a judge in Pennsylvania signed off on the use of the law.

The court-by-court approach to deportations under the AEA flows from another Supreme Court order that removed a case from a judge in Washington, D.C., and ruled that detainees seeking to challenge their deportations must do so where they are held.

Other courts have sought to enforce longer time frames for immigrants to file challenges, with at least two judges calling for 21 days, rather than the current 12-24 hours.

U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines ordered immigration officials to give people 21 days in her opinion, in which she otherwise said deportations could legally take place under the AEA.

The Supreme Court also clarified on Friday that it was not blocking other ways the government may deport people.

Earlier on Friday, Trump posted on Truth Social, criticizing the court after it heard oral arguments on his attempt to amend birthright citizenship. Justices appeared skeptical of the idea of limiting the scope of the 14th Amendment while also leaning toward limiting lower court powers.

To read more CLICK HERE

Context matters in split second use of force decision by police

Marco Poggio of writing at 360.com:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for a civil rights lawsuit against a Houston-area traffic officer who shot and killed a fleeing man, ruling that courts must weigh the full sequence of events — not just the instant a threat arises — when deciding if police used excessive force.

The decision broadens legal protections for civilians and could open new avenues for holding officers accountable for split-second decisions they make during encounters, especially when it was their own actions that put them in danger.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that a federal court erred in dismissing a civil suit against Roberto Felix Jr., who fatally shot 24-year-old Ashtian Barnes during a 2016 traffic stop in Houston. The court found the Fifth Circuit erred in upholding that decision.

The majority opinion by Justice Elena Kagan held that the Fourth Amendment requires courts to consider the "totality of circumstances," including whether an officer's actions prior to a shooting helped create the danger they later claim justified deadly force.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan said that "by limiting their view to the two seconds before the shooting, the lower courts could not take into account anything preceding that final moment."

The decision reinforces precedent the Supreme Court set in 1989 with the case Graham v. Connor, where the court first embraced the "totality of circumstances" approach. Eight circuit courts have been using such a test when probing excessive force claims, while the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth circuits have only looked at the "moment of threat" arising in a police encounter.

"While the situation at the precise time of the shooting will often matter most, earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later ones," Justice Kagan wrote.

The ruling sends the case back to the lower courts where Barnes' estate will get a renewed chance to argue that Felix provoked the fatal confrontation.

Katie Wellington of Hogan Lovells — counsel of record for Barnes' mother, Janice Hughes Barnes — told Law360 in an email that she was "incredibly pleased" by the ruling.

"This was a hard-fought victory through three federal courts, and Janice Barnes will continue fighting for the constitutional rights of her son, Ashtian Barnes, when this case returns to the Fifth Circuit," she said.

Craig B. Futterman, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and expert in civil rights law and police accountability, said in an email that "the court rightly recognized that context matters." The Fifth Circuit could still affirm the district court's dismissal of Barnes' suit as long as it uses the standard the Supreme Court endorsed on Thursday, Futterman said.

Attorneys for Felix did not respond to a request for comment.

The shooting occurred on April 28, 2016, after Felix, a traffic enforcement officer with the Harris County Precinct 5 Constable's Office, pulled Barnes over on a Houston highway, citing unpaid tolls linked to the rental car Barnes was driving. Barnes, who was unarmed, ignored instructions to get out of the car and instead began to slowly drive away.

Felix leapt onto the hood of the moving car and, seconds later, shot Barnes through the windshield. The officer later claimed he fired in self-defense, believing Barnes' erratic driving put his life at risk.

Janice Barnes sued Felix and Harris County in Texas state court under Section 1983 of the federal civil rights statute, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Felix invoked qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields officers from civil liability unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights.

The case was moved to federal court, where U.S. District Judge Alfred H. Bennett sided with Felix. The court found the shooting was reasonable under the Fifth Circuit's moment-of-threat doctrine, which limits judicial review to the seconds before force is used.

Still, Judge Bennett noted in his decision that the doctrine was too narrow and that by following it the Fifth Circuit "has effectively stifled a more robust examination of the Fourth Amendment's protections when it comes to encounters between the public and the police." The judge ultimately said he was bound to apply the rule.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling, calling the moment-of-threat framework "well established" and refusing to consider whether Felix's decision to jump onto the moving car had contributed to the deadly outcome.

"We may only ask whether Officer Felix was in danger at the moment of the threat," the panel wrote. "Any of the officer's actions leading up to the shooting are not relevant."

In a separate concurrence, U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Errol Higginbotham warned that the doctrine conflicted with Graham v. Connor, and called on the justices to resolve the circuit split.

Attorneys for Barnes' mother saw a path opening. They appealed to the Supreme Court in May, arguing the doctrine was "profoundly wrong" and that Felix had no legitimate reason to kill an unarmed man who posed no imminent threat.

During oral arguments on Jan. 22, several justices signaled unease with adopting a legal standard that narrowly looks at the exact moment a threat arises during a police encounter.

Charles L. McCloud of Williams & Connolly LLP, who argued on behalf of Felix, told the justices that once an officer is in danger, the use of deadly force is presumptively reasonable.

"That conclusion should end this case," he said.

Justice Kagan suggested sending the case back to the lower courts to assess the broader circumstances.

"It seems as though we should kick it back and let you guys fight it out," she told the attorneys.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared less sympathetic toward Barnes' arguments.

"What's an officer supposed to do when at a traffic stop and someone pulls away, just let them go?" he asked.

Arguing for Barnes, Nathaniel Avi Gideon Zelinsky, then an attorney with Hogan Lovells who has since joined Milbank LLP, responded by saying that Felix could have opted to chase Ashtian Barnes in his car or request backup from other police units instead of shooting.

Ultimately, the justices rejected the moment-of-threat doctrine as "improperly narrowing" the Fourth Amendment analysis in excessive force claims.

Still, in Thursday's opinion, Justice Kagan made clear that the high court was not weighing in on whether dangerous situations officers themselves create during stops must be part of the analysis to determine whether use of deadly force is reasonable.

"The courts below never confronted that issue, and it was not the basis of the petition for certiorari," Justice Kagan wrote.

Janice Hughes Barnes and the Estate of Ashtian Barnes are represented by Katie Wellington of Hogan Lovells.

Roberto Felix Jr. and Harris County are represented by Charles Luther McCloud of Williams & Connolly LLP.

The case is Janice Hughes Barnes, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Ashtian Barnes v. Roberto Felix Jr. et al., case number 23-1239, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

To read more CLICK HERE

Florida serial killer's last words 'President Trump, keep making America great'

The 16th Execution of 2025

A serial killer used his last words on Earth to shout-out President Donald Trump on May 15, 2025, according to USA TODAY.

"President Trump, keep making America great. I'm ready to go," Glen Rogers, known as the "Casanova Killer," said as he lay strapped to an execution gurney seconds before three drugs coursed through his veins and ended his life at the Florida State Prison in Raiford.

His last words were reported by the Tampa Bay Times and the Associated Press, with reporters representing both outlets as witnesses to the execution.

Randy Roberson, whose mother Andy Lou Jiles Sutton was a victim of the Casanova Killer, witnessed the execution and said that Rogers' comment about Trump seemed to confuse people in the room.

"I was like, 'Where did that even come from?'" he said.

His wife, Amy Roberson − also a witness to the execution − said she thought: "What the hell?"

In addition to his support for Trump, Rogers expressed his love for his family. He also addressed the victims of his crimes.

“I know there’s a lot of questions that you need answers to," he said. "I promise you in the near future the questions will be answered and I hope in someway will bring you closure."

Here's what you need to know about Rogers and his victims, and what Trump has said about the death penalty.

Why was Rogers executed?

Glen Edward Rogers, 62, was executed Thursday by lethal injection for the murder of Tina Marie Cribbs, one of four single mothers in their 30s with reddish hair who fell victim to the so-called "Casanova Killer." Rogers was known both as the "Casanova Killer" for his good looks and ability to charm his future victims, and as the "Cross Country Killer" because the victims all lived in different states: California, Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida.

"He's an animal," one of his victim's sisters said in court before Rogers was sentenced to death, according to an archived report from the Associated Press. "He's about the evilest thing I think I've ever imagined."

Soon after his arrest, Rogers claimed to have killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in Los Angeles in June 1994, and about 70 people overall. There was no evidence to back that up.

Rogers − a native of Hamilton, Ohio − was pronounced dead at 6:16 p.m., becoming the 16th inmate executed in the U.S. this year and the fifth in Florida. Another three men are set to be executed in the U.S. next week, in Texas, Indiana and Tennessee.

Authorities connected five victims to the Casanova Killer. Four of them were mothers with reddish hair in their 30s. Three of the murders happened within a six-day period.

·         Mark Peters, a 72-year-old retired electrician in Hamilton, Ohio, with whom Rogers lived with briefly, was found dead in a shack owned by Rogers' family in January 1994 in Beattyville, Kentucky.

·         Sandra Gallagher, a 33-year-old mother of three, of Santa Monica, California, killed on Sept. 28, 1995 in Van Nuys. Her body was found in her burning vehicle. She had met Rogers in a bar the night of her murder.

·         Linda Price, a 34-year-old mother of two, found stabbed to death in the bathtub of her home in Jackson, Mississippi, on Nov. 3, 1995. Price briefly lived with Rogers, telling her mother: "He is my dream man," according to an archived story in the Dayton Daily News.

·         Tina Marie Cribbs, a 34-year-old mother of two, found stabbed to death in a Tampa, Florida hotel bathtub on Nov. 7, 1995. Like Gallagher, she had met Rogers at a bar on the night of her murder.

·         Andy Lou Jiles Sutton, a 37-year-old mother of four: three sons and a daughter who were 19, 17, 8, and 6 when she was found stabbed to death in her bed on Nov. 9, 1995 in of Bossier City, Louisiana. Sutton and Rogers met before her murder and are believed to have slept together.

What has Trump said about executions?

Trump is a staunch supporter of the death penalty and has called for the ultimate punishment to be carried out expeditiously for murderers languishing on death row for decades.

He has also said the punishment should be used for migrants who kill Americans, people who kill police officers, and drug dealers and human traffickers.

Earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order restoring federal executions.

"Before, during, and after the founding of the United States, our cities, States, and country have continuously relied upon capital punishment as the ultimate deterrent and only proper punishment for the vilest crimes," his order said. "Our Founders knew well that only capital punishment can bring justice and restore order in response to such evil."

To read more CLICK HERE

Yale professor on the danger to democracy 'there is no such thing as a ship that can't sink'

Yale Professor Marci Shore, who has spent two decades writing about the history of authoritarianism, is leaving the U.S. because of what she sees as the sharp regression of American democracy, reported The New York Times. “We’re like people on the Titanic saying our ship can’t sink,” she said. “And what you know as a historian is that there is no such thing as a ship that can’t sink.”

To read more CLICK HERE

American emergency rooms treat at least one firearm injury every 30 minutes

The COVID-19 pandemic and its corresponding increase in shootings sparked a national conversation around firearm injury, emergency room visits, and the treatment of gun violence victims in hospitals. Five years later, the conversation has faded, but new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that gun violence remains a stubborn presence across the country, with 93,022 shooting injuries treated in hospitals from 2018 to 2023. 

According to the research, an American emergency room treats at least one firearm injury every 30 minutes, reported The Trace.

“Most cities use police data to inform prevention planning, but data from hospital and public health sources is an essential, and often missing, piece to guide action, as many incidents of violence and crime are not reported to police,” said Dr. Adam Rowh, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC and lead author of the study, via e-mail to The Trace.

The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine last month, analyzed the CDC’s data on emergency department firearm injuries, which is limited to the District of Columbia and nine states: Florida, Georgia, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. The study showed that the monthly rates for shooting injuries were highest in July and lowest in February; daily rates were disproportionately high on holidays, and nighttime peaks were the highest on Friday and Saturday, consistent with prior research. The researchers also found that rates were highest between 2:30 and 3:00 a.m., and were the lowest between 10:00 and 10:30 a.m. 

The authors of the study concluded that knowing the periods when gunshot injuries are highest could be essential both in deploying care and in effectively allocating resources, such as trauma preparedness, ambulance services, hospital staffing, and strategies for intervention. 

One of those strategies is hospital-based violence intervention programs (HVIPs), an effort aimed at mitigating reinjury by providing holistic and rehabilitative care to shooting victims. The model, first developed 30 years ago, has spread nationwide, and various programs fund their services through myriad resources, most notably through grants now facing the threat of cuts and closures. 

“It’s happening on every front,” January Serda, the grant coordinator of one such program in Newport News, Virginia, said of federal cuts to community violence intervention funding, education, and healthcare.

Dr. Randi Smith, a trauma surgeon who launched an HVIP at Grady Memorial Hospital, in Atlanta, Georgia, said she has attended to a gunshot victim on every one of her on-call days in the trauma center. Financial and social investment in such programs is as paramount to treatment as life-saving medical care, she emphasized. 

“I was very motivated to start a violence intervention program, taking best practices from some of the programs that I have been a part of and shortcomings that I had learned from the past,” Smith said. The program she started in 2023, Interrupting Violence Among Youth and Young Adults, is one of the few based in the Southeast. 

The program has served more than a thousand people, including survivors and their family members. According to Smith, its reinjury rates are less than 3 percent, compared with national benchmarks that are up to 30 percent and institutional benchmarks that are between 12 and 15 percent. 

Her work has a long legacy. Nearly four decades ago, physicians and nurses —  especially those with public health experience — were among the first cohort of medical practitioners to recognize gun violence as a public health issue. That recognition was largely based on what they witnessed in hospitals and emergency rooms, as the rate of shootings reached historic highs in the 1980s and ‘90s. Those firsthand accounts were pivotal in the development of the nation’s first hospital-based violence intervention programs.

Serda, the grant coordinator for an HVIP in Virginia, said in today’s multilayered crisis, it’s more paramount than ever to prioritize care for the people on the frontlines. She came to violence intervention from nonprofit management and fundraising for survivors of sexual assault in 2022, after her 17-year-old son, Justice Dunham, was fatally shot in a high school parking lot after a basketball game.

“I was blown away by the lack of training around trauma-informed care, or safe spaces and outlets, for nurses and practitioners, and people who are seeing this firsthand and helping the community,” said Serda, who began to advocate for trauma-informed initiatives designed to help patients, her HVIP team and others address the emotional impact of caring for victims of violence and firearm injuries. “There was no discussion about compassion fatigue, or burnout, or vicarious trauma.”

As hospital personnel adjust to the ever-evolving firearm violence crisis, Smith said listening to their experiences, and supporting their well-being, has never been more crucial. 

“I think a lot of people are looking at the recent news, post-pandemic, that shootings have decreased, and have not realized that we as hospital staff are still treating patients day after day,” said Smith, “dealing with a medical environment that shifted significantly since the pandemic, and navigating extreme burnout.”

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: States Look to Their Own Constitutions for Guidance on Racial Equality

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
May 13, 2025

In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that held racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote the majority opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson.

Six justices joined with Brown, who opined that although the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed the legal equality of all races in the United States, "it was not intended to prevent social or other types of discrimination."

The much-maligned decision in Plessy remained in effect about education for 58 years. Finally, on May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education — which held that the "separate but equal" doctrine was unconstitutional in the context of public schools and educational facilities.

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision in favor of Brown. The Court ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," and therefore laws that impose them violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Brown paved the way for minority students to have a fair and equal education. In 1974, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act was established, prohibiting discrimination against faculty, staff and students. This included racial segregation of students and required school districts to take action to overcome barriers to students' equal participation.

However, 69 years after Brown, the Supreme Court rejected affirmative action at schools of higher education, declaring that the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina were unlawful, eliminating a pillar of higher education.

In Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina, the Brown decision was often quoted in the 230 pages of opinions.

The Supreme Court held that state laws cannot favor one race over another, that the equal protection clause requires equal treatment under the law for everyone "without regard to race or color." The decisions turned the Brown decision on its head. Affirmative action — which had been used to level the playing field for minority students was now considered to be imposing discriminatory practices on white prospective students.

The landmark decision in Brown, which overturned a legacy of racism in this country, was used to rationalize an argument eliminating affirmative action. The decisions in Harvard and North Carolina will, as Adam Liptak wrote in The New York Times, "(A)ll but ensured that the student population at the campuses of elite institutions would become whiter and more Asian and less Black and Latino."

Then came President Donald Trump's second term. Almost immediately upon taking office, a letter went out to state education leaders across the country, suggesting Title I funding — targeted to schools with a high proportion of low-income students — would be cut if the use of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI) programs continued.

School and state officials were asked to sign a certification or "loyalty oath" and return it to the U.S Department of Education acknowledging they are complying with the directive. The oath has been challenged in court.

In light of an unsympathetic Supreme Court and an administration bent on rewriting the history of discrimination in this country, advocates for racial equality are fighting back. They have turned to state constitutions and state courts to fight "resegregation."

State judges in New Jersey and Minnesota have interpreted their respective state constitutions as imposing responsibility on the state to remedy racial discrimination. Expect more states to look to their state constitution for relief, while other states relish the federal government's undoing of years of progress toward racial equity.

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