SCOTUS will soon hear what may be the most important case since the Civil War

 Garrett Epps writes in the Washington Monthly:

On April 1, the Supreme Court will hear Trump v. Barbara, which will test the theory that the president, with the stroke of a pen, can strip millions of American-born children of the birthright citizenship the Constitution grants them. 

The birthright citizenship case is easily the most important case that will come before the Court this year. I’ll add: Barbara may be the most important case the Court hears in this century.  

It may be the most important case the Court has heard since the Civil War. 

Epps sums up the issue like this:

The first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Since the amendment’s adoption in 1868, these words have applied to those born in the U.S.—except for two classes: First, children born to the families of foreign diplomats, whose diplomatic immunity means they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.; and, second, children born to members of Native American nations living on reservations, who were, in 1868, not “subject to the jurisdiction” because, by treaty, they could not be arrested or sued in federal court. (This provision was undone by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.) The birthright of all other American-born children has been recognized by the Supreme Court for 125 years and by Congress since at least 1940.  

To read more CLICK HERE

PA Supreme Court strikes down mandatory LWOP for felony murder

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled it’s unconstitutional to require mandatory life sentences without parole for people convicted of felony murder, The Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

“Life without parole imposes the harshest imprisonment sanction permitted under the law ─ imprisonment until death without the opportunity for consideration of release ─ regardless of culpability,” Chief Justice Debra Todd wrote in the majority opinion. “Due to this scheme’s mandatory nature and its unique severity, it poses a great risk of disproportionate punishment.” 

Life sentences will still be allowed for second-degree murder on a case-by case-basis, but Todd writes that it violates the state constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment to mandate it in all cases.

The decision was near-unanimous, with only one judge, Justice Kevin Brobson, dissenting in part.

But what the ruling means for the more than 1,000 Pennsylvanians serving life sentences without parole on felony murder charges is still unclear.

The ruling gives the general assembly 120 days to come up with a legislative fix to the state’s sentencing laws, but that could take many different shapes. And it will likely kick off what could be the largest resentencing effort the commonwealth has ever taken, though the timeline will depend on decisions made by lawmakers.

To read more CLICK HERE

Balko: 'You know we’re lying. We know that you know we’re lying. And there isn’t a goddamn thing you can do about it'

 The Watch by Radley Balko on substack:

For me, it became clear that we were in a uniquely dangerous era after the shooting of Marimar Martinez and the killing of Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez in Chicago. I’m pretty jaded about these things, but I was jarred at how the administration openly gloated and shamelessly lied about the use of lethal force by DHS against people who posed no threat. It only got worse after the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. The lies the administration told after those killings aren’t the lies you tell to cover something up. They’re the lies you tell when you want to project to the country that you can get away with anything. The lies themselves are their own display of authoritarianism. The government is telling us, “You know we’re lying. We know that you know we’re lying. And there isn’t a goddamn thing you can do about it.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino appears on Law and Crime's Scandal with Sierra Gillespie

Watch my interview with Sierra Gillespie of Law and Crime's Scandal to discuss the horrific murder in Wales of a mother by her 18-year-old son.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Mangino discusses verdict in Meta and You Tube trial

Watch my interview with Lindsay McCoy on WFMJ-TV21 regarding landmark California social media suit.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ends Mandatory Life Without Parole For Those Who Did Not Intentionally Kill

Sentencing Project
PRESS RELEASE

(Washington, D.C.) Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court barred mandatory life without parole (LWOP) sentences for people convicted of felony murder. The court’s ruling in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Derek Lee establishes that a mandatory life without parole sentence imposed for felony murder without consideration of the person’s individual culpability violates the Pennsylvania Constitution’s prohibition of “cruel punishments”, marking a major shift from automatic and unforgiving policies that had condemned over a thousand to die in prison. 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion states: “We find that the sentencing framework imposing a mandatory sentence of life without parole for second degree murder convictions in all cases, regardless of the culpability and characteristics of the defendant - including such as the extent of an offender’s participation in the conduct, and the details of his offense - without individualized assessment either at sentencing or through parole, prevents the sentencer from considering whether this harshest of sentences proportionately punishes the offender. . . . Ultimately, we find that the mandatory sentencing scheme for second degree murder poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment, and, thus, find it to be cruel.”  

The Sentencing Project joined 16 other organizations, including the ACLU, MacArthur Justice Center, Juvenile Law Center, and Pennsylvania Prison Society, in filing amicus briefs urging the Court to strike down Pennsylvania’s lifetime ban on parole eligibility for individuals convicted of felony murder. As noted in its brief, “The reduced culpability of a person convicted of felony murder… renders life without parole disproportionately harsh and unconstitutional.” 

Pennsylvania remains a national outlier, with over 5,000 people serving life without parole—nearly 1,100 for felony murder—ranking among the highest in the country. The Sentencing Project’s research shows these laws disproportionately impact Black Pennsylvanians, who make up 70% of those serving time for felony murder, despite being just 12% of the state’s population. 

“This decision is a critical step toward ending the use of extreme sentences that ignore the human capacity for change and do nothing to prevent crime or keep our communities safe,” said Sara Cohbra of The Sentencing Project. “Mandatory LWOP sentences for these crimes are a clear violation of how our legal system is supposed to work, where a criminal sentence is proportional to the moral weight of a crime. We urge lawmakers to repeal cruel and ineffective felony murder statutes to address the scourge of mass incarceration and racial disparities in the criminal legal system.”  

Read the full amicus brief for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Derek Lee here. For more information about how The Sentencing Project is advocating against extreme sentences, please visit https://www.sentencingproject.org/ending-extreme-sentences/. 

Minnesota sue DHS over failure to provide investigative materials from three shooting

Minnesota sued the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over their refusal to provide state investigators with access to evidence regarding three shootings by DHS agents in the state, reported JuristNews.

The complaint alleges that DHS and DOJ unlawfully denied the state’s requests for evidence pertaining to the shootings. According to the state, it has a legal right to investigate the shootings that took place, asserting that it “retain[s] the sovereign authority—and responsibility—to investigate crimes committed within [state] borders.” By refusing to cooperate with state investigators, Minnesota claims that the federal government is violating the Administrative Procedure Act.

The lawsuit stems from three shootings by federal authorities in Minnesota that occurred during “Operation Metro Surge,” the DHS immigration enforcement effort within the state that saw thousands of DHS agents deployed to Minneapolis and St. Paul. The shootings include those of Alex Pretti, Renee Good, and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis. Pretti and Good were both killed, while Sosa-Celis was shot in the leg. The federal government has defended the shootings on grounds of self defense.

Minnesota alleges that it has requested evidence in connection to the three shootings from the DHS and DOJ, following the proper procedure as required by the Supreme Court in Touhy v. Ragen and by 5 U.S.C. § 301. Minnesota argues that agencies may prescribe regulations for state requests for information connected to investigations, but they cannot prohibit any disclosure. The state further claims that DHS denied its request for evidence on the grounds that the Department would not release matters regarding criminal investigations. Minnesota rebuffed this argument by citing 6 C.F.R. § 5.41, which allows for disclosure related to criminal investigations. The DOJ has likewise refused to provide evidence, the state contends, citing Department policy to not disclose information pertaining to Operation Metro Surge. Minnesota maintains that both of these refusals unlawfully interfere with its ability to investigate under Touhy.

The lawsuit comes against the backdrop of ongoing controversy surrounding Operation Metro Surge. Following the shooting of Pretti and Good, the Trump administration decided to end the operation. Though DHS agents remain in the state, hundreds have been recalled. The DOJ also opened a civil rights investigation into the shooting of Pretti, but refused to do so for Good.

Minnesota is seeking a declaration from the court that the withholding of evidence is unlawful, and an order to release the evidence.

To read more CLICK HERE