Mangino discusses Tepe murders on WFMJ-TV21

Watch my interview with Lindsay McCoy on WFMJ-TV21 about the Tepe murders in Columbus, Ohio.

 To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Federal immigration agents have shot into vehicles at least 13 times in the last six months

Here is a block of news worth reading from The Marshall Project:

When is deadly police force justified? Police officers are taught not to fire their weapons into vehicles. ICE agents haven’t had the same training. Mother Jones Federal immigration agents have shot into vehicles at least 13 times since July. The Wall Street Journal As protests against ICE agents grow, ICE officials tell agents to take “appropriate and decisive” action against perceived threats. The New York Times Even before Renee Good was named, the Trump administration began re-writing the history of her killing. Wired This isn’t a new problem. In the past, federal immigration agents have intentionally stepped in front of moving vehicles to justify shooting at drivers. The Nation TMP Context: Use of force by ICE agents. The Marshall Project

CREATORS: A Breakthrough in Fingerprint Analysis

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
December 30, 2025

Fingerprints have long been considered the gold standard of crime investigation techniques. As early as 1903, America — with its new young president and former New York City police commissioner Teddy Roosevelt — began using fingerprints in criminal investigations. Fingerprint analysis became a "thing" back in the mid-18th century in India.

Within a couple of decades, the FBI began cataloging fingerprints. Today, the bureau is storing more than 200 million fingerprints.

Until recently, the FBI described fingerprint identification as 100% infallible. That is no longer the case. In the last twenty years, there hasn't been a lot of good news when it comes to forensic analysis, including fingerprint analysis.

What do we know about fingerprints? Impressions of fingerprints are left behind on various surfaces by the natural secretions of sweat. The friction ridges, the raised portion of the epidermis on fingers consisting of one or more connected ridges, are often the point of comparison.

First, an intentional recording of the fingerprint is made with black ink on a white card or recorded digitally. These are often collected after arrest and secured in a database. At a crime scene a "latent print," the chance recording of a fingerprint deposited on a surface, is captured through chemical methods and brought into a lab for expert analysis.

Fingerprint identification came under scrutiny in 2004. The FBI publicly acknowledged the fingerprint misidentification of an Oregon lawyer wrongfully implicated in a terrorist bombing in Madrid — a place he had never visited.

Through a study conducted in 2004, cognitive neuroscientist Itiel Dror found that otherwise competent and well-meaning experts were swayed by what they knew about a case submitted for analysis. Dror's study demonstrated that if an analyst knew that the suspect confessed or was arrested, the analyst's findings could be influenced. According to Frontline, cognitive bias seeped into the process even with the best-trained experts.

In steps deep learning, the use of multi-layered artificial intelligence to automatically learn complex patterns from vast amounts of data.

A recent study published in Science Advances entitled "Unveiling intra-person fingerprint similarity via deep contrastive learning" revealed a breakthrough in fingerprint analysis.

Law enforcement agencies worldwide have operated under the long-standing belief that no two fingerprints are alike, even across the ten fingers of a single individual.

The authors suggest that an investigator can sidestep the same-finger limitation by exploiting nontraditional fingerprint features. "Past studies provided evidence that fingerprint patterns may be partially genetically determined which implies that there could be similarities among fingerprints from the same person," the authors found.

In addition, "recent research shows that partial fingerprints from different users have common features that can be exploited to fool authentication systems."

The study concluded, "the ability to process and match distinct fingerprint samples from the same individual opens new investigative possibilities, particularly in cases where fingerprints are partial or collected under suboptimal conditions."

This breakthrough moves investigators away from matching the best print with the exact finger of a suspect. The study found, "The new AI model reduces this dependency by identifying shared features that remain stable across different fingers."

How does fingerprint evidence get in front of a jury?

Specialized rules of evidence allow expert testimony if the conclusions are based on knowledge, skill, experience, training or education in the techniques involved and the specialized knowledge will assist the judge or jury to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. The testimony must be based on reliable principles and methods, consistently applied.

Here is the new dilemma. If Artificial Intelligence is used to determine a fingerprint match, how does the expert witness convey the process of using AI to evaluate the evidence? This information is crucial to whether a judge allows the expert's opinion and whether the opinion helps jurors understand the reliability of evidence.

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

FBI refuses local Minnesota authorities access to ICE homicide investigation

Minnesota state officials have urged the FBI to bring them back into the fold on an investigation into the shooting by an ICE agent of Renee Good, reported Minnesota Public Radio.

Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension was initially working in tandem with the FBI after an ICE officer killed the 37-year-old Good. But reversed course, saying it has sole authority.

Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson said that could hamper a state investigation and possible prosecution.

“Unless we do that thorough investigation, unless we have access to all of that evidence, unless we have access to the agents that were involved in that, to any witnesses, without any of that, we would not be able to put together a quality investigation for any prosecutor to be able to make a determination as to whether or not someone should be charged with a crime,” he said.

Jacobson and Gov. Tim Walz urged the Trump administration to allow state and local law enforcement officers to participate in the investigation to ensure public trust in its results.

“Use our professional folks. They will gain you the credibility and the trust of Minnesotans to believe the work that you're doing is honest and it's not just a whitewashed to back fill a preconceived notion,” Walz said.

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said Thursday that her office began exploring options available to ensure a state-level investigation could move forward.

“If the FBI is the sole investigative agency, the State will not receive the investigative findings, and our community may never learn about its contents,” Moriarty said in a statement. “We are speaking to our local partners on paths forward that will allow us to review the investigation and be transparent in our decision making."

To read more CLICK HERE

Propaganda failed at times for even the master purveyors of deceit

As the airwaves are flooded with government propaganda about the homicide of Renee Nicole Good at the hands of an ICE agent in Minneapolis, we are reminded that sometimes propaganda backfired on even the master purveyors of deceit. 

Hessy Levinsons Taft, who as an infant appeared on the cover of a Nazi magazine in Germany promoting her as the ideal Aryan baby, a distinction complicated by the fact that she was Jewish and had been exploited as part of a dangerous hoax, died on Jan. 1 at her home in San Francisco. She was 91.

Her death was confirmed by her family, reported The New York Times.

Terrifying at first, the story eventually became a source of pride for Mrs. Taft and her parents for the way it neatly illustrated the absurd pseudoscience underlying Adolf Hitler’s racial ideology.

“I feel a sense of revenge,” she said much later. “Good revenge.”

The episode began in 1934, when Hessy was 6 months old and her parents, Latvian opera singers living in Berlin, hired the well-known photographer Hans Ballin to take her portrait.

After framing the photo, her parents displayed it on their piano. One day, the woman who cleaned their home noticed it and told Hessy’s mother that she had seen her daughter on the cover of a magazine.

“My mother thought surely she must be mistaken, that there are many babies that look alike, and just told her, ‘Well, that couldn’t be the case,’” Mrs. Taft said in an interview with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in 1990.

The woman insisted that it was the same baby. “Just give me some money,” she said, “and I’ll get you the magazine.”

Soon she returned with a copy of Sonne ins Haus, or Sun in the Home, one of several pro-Nazi magazines that were allowed to circulate in the country after Hitler had shut down thousands of other publications. And there, on the cover, was the portrait from the piano.

Hessy’s mother flipped through the pages.

“On the inside of the magazine were pictures of the army with men wearing swastikas,” Mrs. Taft told the Holocaust museum. “My parents were horrified.”

Her mother went to Mr. Ballin’s studio and showed him the magazine. “What is this?” she said. “How did this happen?”

He told her that the Nazis had invited him to submit photos for a contest to find a baby representing the epitome of the Aryan race, and Hessy was among those he included in his submission. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of public enlightenment and propaganda, chose the winner.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino joins Nancy Grace on Crime Stories

Watch my interview on Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

ICE: When is 'officer involved shooting' justifiable homicide?

A federal immigration operation in Minneapolis turned deadly this week when a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Good during a confrontation involving her vehicle, reported The Associated Press.

Cellphone video captured the shooting, which federal officials claimed was an act of self-defense but that the city’s mayor described as “reckless” and unnecessary. Video shows an ICE officer approaching Good’s SUV stopped in the road as the vehicle begins to move forward. Another ICE officer standing in front of it draws his gun and fires at close range as he jumps out of the way.

Here's what to know about regulations on using deadly force in these situations:

When can officers fire at a moving vehicle?

There is no universal training standard for law enforcement. But most police departments and federal guidance bar shooting at a moving vehicle unless the driver poses an imminent threat of deadly force beyond the car itself.

Why are shootings at vehicles restricted?

Experts say firing at a moving car is one of the riskiest forms of lethal force, increasing the chance of stray gunfire or a loss of vehicle control that can endanger bystanders.

Are officers expected to move out of the way?

Yes. Justice Department policy says deadly force is allowed only when no reasonable alternative exists, including stepping out of the vehicle’s path.

Can officers use deadly force just to stop or arrest someone?

No. Policies generally state officers cannot use deadly force solely to arrest someone or to disable a fleeing vehicle if the person does not pose an immediate threat.

Do federal immigration agents follow different rules?

Not fundamentally. ICE and other federal officers operate under similar Justice Department guidance limiting gunfire at vehicles, although federal agents have added legal protections when acting within their official duties.

What is ICE's policy?

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, allows deadly force only when an officer reasonably believes someone poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury.

Who investigates these shootings?

Federal agencies conduct internal reviews, and state and local authorities may also pursue criminal investigations. Federal agents are not immune from prosecution if they act outside their authority. The FBI is leading the investigation into the Minneapolis shooting.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino joins Law & Crime Network to discuss located runaway teen

I joined Angenette Levy on Law & Crime Network  to discuss South Carolina runaway teen.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Now Is Not the Time To Test the Limits of Free Speech

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
January 6, 2026

Israeli billionaire Shlomo Kramer recently suggested on CNBC's "Money Movers" that governments must restrict freedom of speech in the age of Artificial Intelligence."

You're seeing the polarization in countries that allow for the First Amendment and protect it, which is great. And I know it's difficult to hear, but it's time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it," he said.

Kramer was speaking, generally, of countries that protect freedom of speech and expression in their constitutions and not just America's First Amendment.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, along with nine other amendments to the U.S. Constitution referred to as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Those 45 words lay the groundwork for some of our most cherished and fundamental rights — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right to assemble.

In 1919, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes established the clear-and-present-danger test: "whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent." This is the opinion where Holmes declared the now-famous example of unprotected speech — falsely crying "fire" in a crowded theater.

So, clearly not all speech is protected under the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not simply say that if words are involved, you cannot be held responsible for their consequences.

The First Amendment restricts government censorship, not rules set by private companies or employers. That means private platforms, employers, or TV networks can set their own rules about what employees or users can say, as long as those rules are made free from government interference or pressure.

Recently, late-night host Jimmy Kimmel was temporarily taken off the air after the government threatened to retaliate against ABC, his employer. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr criticized one of Kimmel's monologues about the killing of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk.

Carr specifically called on ABC affiliates to inform ABC that they would not carry Kimmel's show and pointed out the power that the FCC has over the broadcasting licenses of the affiliates.

Kimmel's show was pulled. The public was outraged. A private company has the right to control the speech of its employees without triggering the First Amendment. If the government coerces a private company to control speech, the First Amendment is violated.

What exactly is Kramer proposing to control — hate speech, disinformation or unflattering thoughts about government leaders?

Can the government punish hate speech?

The U.S. Supreme Court has said "no." In 2017, in a decision striking down a federal law banning disparaging trademarks, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the government had no business "preventing speech expressing ideas that offend."

Can the government prohibit speech that causes distress?

The Supreme Court again said "no." Courts would not stop a planned march by the American Nazi Party in Illinois in 1977, though it would have been deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors who lived there.

The First Amendment does not protect incitement of violence, but even there, the Supreme Court defined the prohibition very narrowly, requiring a likelihood of imminent violence.

Limiting online speech is a slippery slope. Striking a balance between removing harmful content and protecting legitimate expression is difficult at the very least. Maybe, more importantly, in our current political climate, the regulation of any speech could be used to silence dissent and suppress the marginalized.

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

'Undeniable truths': Trump's push for state-sponsored death not as supported as he would have you believe

Matthew T. Mangino
Law & Crime News
January 5, 2026

Gov. Josh Shapiro has quietly issued a reprieve to a Pennsylvania inmate on death row.

This was the first reprieve of Shapiro's tenure and, although inconsistent with the actions of a number of other state executives, should not come as a surprise. Soon after he took office, Shapiro called on the legislature to repeal the death penalty. He said that his time as attorney general "revealed two undeniable truths about our capital sentencing system: that it is inherently fallible and that its consequences are irreversible."

In his reprieve, he wrote that although those sentenced to death "have committed the most terrible crimes and deserve to spend the rest of their lives behind bars," the commonwealth "should not be in the business of executing people."

Shapiro's position stands out in comparison to politicians who use the death penalty as a prop to promote or tout their "tough on crime" bona fides.

There were 47 executions in the United States last year — the most since 2010, the year I chose to examine all the executions across the country in my book, "The Executioner's Toll, 2010."

Maybe Donald Trump's executive order on the first day of his current term has had an impact on state-sponsored death. The order established that "It is the policy of the United States to ensure that the laws that authorize capital punishment are respected and faithfully implemented, and to counteract the politicians and judges who subvert the law by obstructing and preventing the execution of capital sentences."

At least one Trump adherent took the machinery of death and ran with it. Florida's Gov. Ron DeSantis has presided over a record-breaking surge in capital punishment — 19 executions last year.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to expand the application of the death penalty. Not to mention, the Court denied every request to stay an execution in 2025.

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bans, as cruel and unusual punishment, the execution of people who are intellectually disabled. The Court is poised to whittle away at its prior ruling.

Florida's Supreme Court recently upheld a 2023 state law allowing nonunanimous juries to sentence people to death. Florida law permits capital punishment with a jury recommendation of 8-4 in favor of death, the lowest standard in the nation.

Methods of execution were also controversial. Louisiana adopted nitrogen gas as a method of execution and South Carolina adopted — and used — the firing squad in 2025.

What explains the increase in executions?

Probably not public support. Recent polls show about half of Americans favor executions, but the best evidence of what people really think is found in courtrooms, where jurors have increasingly rejected the punishment.

Only 27 states, the federal government and the U.S. military, still allow the death penalty. This year, prosecutors in just 11 of those states sought the death penalty against a total of 51 people, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Jurors chose to send just 23 people to death row. Two-thirds of those death sentences came from only three states — Alabama, California, and Florida. To add some perspective, in 1996 alone 315 people were sentenced to death in the United States.

"The increase in this year's execution numbers was caused by the outlier state of Florida, where the governor set a record number of executions," said Robin Maher, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center. ​"The data show that the decisions of Gov. DeSantis and other elected officials are increasingly at odds with the decisions of American juries and the opinions of the American public."

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C., New Castle, Pennsylvania.  He is a frequent contributor to Law & Crime News. His book "The Executioner's Toll, 2010" was released by McFarland Publishing. You can follow him on X @MatthewTMangino.

To visit Law & Crime News CLICK HERE

 

A primer on what Nicholas Maduro faces in U.S. Court

Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela captured in a U.S. military raid, faces criminal charges in Manhattan, where federal prosecutors have targeted him for years, reported Reuters.

Here is a recap of the indictment unsealed on Saturday against Maduro, his wife, his son, and other co-defendants.

WHAT CHARGES DOES MADURO FACE?

The indictment, opens new tab alleged Maduro and other Venezuelan leaders have, for more than 25 years, "abused their positions of public trust and corrupted once-legitimate institutions to import tons of cocaine into the United States."

The indictment alleged Maduro and his allies “provided law enforcement cover and logistical support” to major drug trafficking groups, such as the Sinaloa Cartel and Tren de Aragua gang. These criminal organizations sent profits to high-ranking officials who protected them in exchange, the Justice Department said.

Among other specific acts, Maduro is accused of selling Venezuelan diplomatic passports to known drug traffickers and facilitating flights under diplomatic cover to bring drug proceeds back from Mexico to Venezuela.

Maduro was indicted on four counts: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

The case was brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, an office within the Justice Department famous for its fierce independence and aggressive prosecutions.

The same prosecutor's office returned an indictment against Maduro in 2020, with the same four charges. The updated indictment made public on Saturday adds some new details and co-defendants, including Maduro's wife, Cilia Flores.

The first lady is accused of ordering kidnappings and murders, as well as accepting bribes in 2007 to arrange a meeting between drug traffickers and the director of Venezuela’s National Anti-Drug Office.

WHAT COMES NEXT IN THE CRIMINAL CASE?

Maduro is expected to make an initial appearance in court on Monday. A judge will likely advise him of the charges against him and ensure he has a defense lawyer.

It could be several months or even more than a year before Maduro stands trial. Prosecutors could eventually offer a plea deal to avoid a trial.

Maduro's case is expected to be overseen by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein because he was assigned to the 2020 case brought against Maduro.

The 92-year-old jurist who has been skeptical of arguments by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration in other high-profile cases. Earlier this year, Hellerstein rejected efforts to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, saying the wartime law had been improperly invoked by the Trump administration.

WHAT DEFENSES WILL MADURO RAISE?

As the case unfolds, Maduro is likely to argue to seek dismissal on the grounds that he is immune, or shielded, from criminal prosecution because he is a foreign head of state.

Judges have in some contexts concluded that foreign officials enjoy immunity from legal claims in U.S. courts.

But Maduro faces an uphill battle with this argument because of a historic precedent: the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 that ousted the country's leader, Manuel Noriega.

Like Maduro, Noriega was accused of conspiring to smuggle drugs into the U.S., and was captured in a military raid in his home country.

U.S. courts rejected Noriega's immunity argument, showing deference to the U.S. government's assertion that he was not Panama's legitimate leader. Legal experts have said that precedent will likely undermine Maduro's efforts to get charges dismissed.

Maduro is also likely to invoke a legal doctrine that says criminal charges should be dismissed if prosecutors brought them vindictively or selectively. He might also argue that claims against him are time-barred, meaning they are too old to be pursued in court.

Federal conspiracy charges generally have a five-year statute of limitations, meaning charges must be brought within five years of the alleged crime's completion, with some exceptions.

To read more CLICK HERE

States are moving in sharply different directions on the death penalty

States are moving in sharply different directions on the death penalty, with some looking to broaden when and how executions occur while others try to scale them back or end them entirely, reported Stateline.

Lawmakers in more than half of the states have introduced over 100 bills this year to either expand or limit capital punishment, to alter execution protocols, and to change how death sentences are imposed, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that studies capital punishment. The group does not take a position on the death penalty, but it is critical of how it is carried out.

Some of the bills seeking to expand the death penalty would have included crimes that have been hot-button issues, such as the killing of police officers, sexual offenses against children, abortion and crimes committed by people living in the country illegally. Lawmakers in at least seven states this year also have attempted to legalize alternative methods of execution.

Earlier in the year, however, some Republican legislators in conservative states — including Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio and Oklahoma — proposed measures to abolish the death penalty or impose moratoriums to halt pending and future executions. None of those efforts advanced through their legislatures.

Georgia, meanwhile, enacted a law barring the execution of people with intellectual disabilities.

To read more CLICK HERE

WHY? U.S. ATTACKS VENEZUELA, CAPTURES PRESIDENT

President Trump announced that U.S. forces had carried out “a large scale strike against Venezuela” and were flying President Nicolás Maduro and his wife out of the country. The Trump administration had been building pressure on Mr. Maduro for months, reported The New York Times.

To read more CLICK HERE

What's on the agenda for U.S. Supreme Court in 2026

Here are the Supreme Court cases to watch in 2026, according to Axios:

Birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court will likely decide Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship in early 2026 in Trump v. Barbara.

Driving the news: Upholding Trump's order, which seeks to bar children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S. from citizenship, would overturn a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and upheld by the court for more than a century.

Trump's order was quickly met with legal challenges, and several courts temporarily halted its implementation.

Flashback: The administration argues birthright citizenship applies only to formerly enslaved people who were granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment after the Civil War.

Michael LeRoy, an immigration law expert at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, previously told Axios' Avery Lotz that it's impossible to predict how SCOTUS will rule — but a decision in Trump's favor could have sweeping implications for other constitutional protections.

Trump's tariff case

SCOTUS will decide the legality of Trump declaring a national emergency to impose sweeping tariffs on foreign goods without congressional approval, in what he has called the "most important case ever" in Learning Resources v. Trump.

State of play: A ruling against Trump could force the government to refund more than $100 billion in tariffs already collected and curtail his ability to use declared emergencies to enact his economic agenda.

Trump has repeatedly claimed tariff revenue will help pay down the national debt, bankroll aid to farmers and cover the cost of his new "warrior dividend" — a one-time $1,776 bonus for roughly 1.45 million service members — even though the bonus is actually being paid out of previously approved Pentagon housing funds, not tariffs.

Yes, but: The president has argued his far-reaching tariffs create jobs and boost U.S. manufacturing, claims many economists dispute. Economists also worry the government might ultimately have to return the tariff revenue.

In recent weeks, companies including Costco, Revlon, Bumble Bee Foods and the maker of Ray-Ban have sued, seeking refunds if the justices ultimately strike down the tariffs.

What Trump's saying: "Evil, American hating Forces are fighting us at the United States Supreme Court," Trump said in Truth Social post in November.

"Pray to God that our Nine Justices will show great wisdom, and do the right thing for America!"

Banning conversion therapy

SCOTUS is expected to rule on a case challenging bans on LGBTQ+ conversion therapy for minors — a discredited practice aimed at changing young people's sexual orientations or gender identities in Chiles v. Salazar.

Zoom out: The justices will decide whether therapists' conversations with patients are protected by the First Amendment or considered medical treatment that states can regulate.

LGBTQ+ advocates, major medical and mental health organizations have condemned conversion therapy as harmful, discriminatory and ineffective.

Worth noting: Twenty-three states had full bans on conversion therapy as of late 2025, with five states imposing a partial ban. Five states prohibit such bans, while 18 have no restrictions.

Trans athletes in women's sports

SCOTUS will hear arguments in two major cases — one from Idaho and another from West Virginia — where states banned transgender athletes from participating in girls' sports in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox.

Zoom in: The court could decide Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs, does not protect transgender athletes competing in sports consistent with their gender identity.

A decision against the athletes would mark a major setback for the LGBTQ+ community, adding to Trump's other 2025 actions to limit protections for transgender individuals.

The Voting Rights Act

The high court appears poised to severely curtail Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a decision that would reshape how legislative and congressional maps are drawn nationwide and potentially reduce minority representation by significant margins in Louisiana v. Callais.

Why it matters: The case challenges a core provision of the Voting Rights Act that has created maps that allow minority voters to elect their candidates of choice. Overturning it could allow Republicans to lock in additional congressional and legislative seats across the country.

The ruling could make it significantly harder for minority voters to secure or maintain electoral representation.

Campaign finance

SCOTUS will rule on a Republican-backed challenge that aims to overturn decades-old limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates in NRSC v. FEC.

What we're watching: Election watchdogs warn that removing these limits would destroy the few remaining firewalls between big money and candidates.

The case would further remove campaign finance restrictions on how much an individual or group can donate directly to a candidate, which provides a safeguard against bribery or suspected corruption.

How it works: Under current law, political action committees can raise unlimited funds, but they can't coordinate with candidates.

Parties, on the other hand, are limited in how much they can raise, but they are able to cooperate with candidates.

Republicans argue those limits violate the First Amendment by preventing parties from supporting their nominees.

Firing independent agency heads

The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump has the unilateral authority to fire leaders of independent agencies in Trump v. Cook and Trump v. Slaughter.

The bottom line: A ruling for Trump would overturn a 90-year-old precedent that shielded independent agency commissioners from political firings.

Catch up quick: The cases stem from Trump's attempted firing of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and his firings of FTC officials Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, who later resigned.

Trump said their service at the agency was "inconsistent with my Administration's policies," in a letter announcing the terminations.

Hawaii law prohibiting guns

SCOTUS will rule on the legality of a Hawaii law that prohibits individuals from carrying guns onto private property unless the owner gives explicit consent in Wolford v. Lopez.

Hawaii's list of "sensitive places," where firearms are banned, includes more than 15 categories — places such as bars, beaches and banks — which plaintiffs argue violates their 2nd Amendment rights.

Context: Hawaii enacted the new restrictions in 2023 after the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, which held that the 2nd Amendment included the right to carry in public.

California has faced similar legal challenges after passing laws aimed at tightening firearm restrictions on private property.

The justices have agreed to consider only Hawaii's burden flipping provision, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld, finding that the state's law "falls well within the historical tradition," and not the broader sensitive places restrictions as a whole.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mississippi rebuffs confession of murder carried out at direction of prison guards

For months, Chancellor Berrong, a 26-year-old in prison for assault and kidnapping, has been trying to tell the authorities that he killed a man in a Mississippi jail seven years ago, reported The New York Times.

He told a prison guard that he had information about the crime, attempted to confess to a detective and gave a written confession to a prison warden, he said, but agents with the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation, the state agency that typically investigates in-custody deaths, took no action.

In interviews, Mr. Berrong said that he attacked William Wade Aycock IV at the request of a guard in 2018. That allegation is disputed by a former inmate, who told reporters he overheard Mr. Berrong and others planning the assault to stop Mr. Aycock from implicating a member of their gang in an unrelated crime.

Previous reporting on the Rankin County Adult Detention Center, where Mr. Aycock died, revealed that for years, guards relied on some inmates as an attack squad to help keep order and to retaliate against troublemakers.

A review of the initial investigation of the death reveals that the authorities took steps that could have hindered a full accounting of what happened. Guards and inmates cleaned the cell where Mr. Aycock died with bleach before the state investigators arrived, according to four witnesses. In addition, the M.B.I.’s investigation file contains no photos of the cell, no security camera footage and no notes from interviews with inmates.

Days after the death, M.B.I. agents and the state medical examiner determined that Mr. Aycock died by accident after falling off his bunk bed — without documenting the evidence that led them to this conclusion.

Mississippi Today and The New York Times have uncovered evidence that supports Mr. Berrong’s confession and suggests that the authorities ignored or destroyed evidence that could have helped solve the case. His account is the latest allegation of wrongdoing by law enforcement in Rankin County, a Jackson suburb where sheriff’s deputies have been accused of torturing suspected drug users.

Jason Dare, the spokesperson and attorney for the sheriff’s department, said he had forwarded reporters’ request for comment to the M.B.I. He declined to comment further.

The commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Public Safety, Sean Tindell, said that the M.B.I. would reopen the case based on the new information.

Guards and inmates at the Rankin County Adult Detention Center cleaned up the scene of Mr. Aycock’s death before investigators arrived, according to four witnesses.Credit...Rory Doyle for The New York Times

Mr. Berrong, a member of the Latin Kings street gang with a long criminal record, said that in June 2018, he yanked a sleeping Mr. Aycock off the top bunk in his cell, slammed him to the floor and stomped on his head. He said he never intended to kill the man, just to send him a message to keep his mouth shut.

Mr. Berrong said he has come forward out of a sense of guilt.

For seven years, he said, he had gotten away with the crime, in part because of missteps in the investigation. Shortly after killing Mr. Aycock, he watched a group of inmates and guards soak up the blood, which had spread past the cell door, and douse the cell in bleach.

A former inmate named John Phillips said he cleaned the cell before the M.B.I. arrived and compared the scene to a horror film. Two former guards who spoke on the condition of anonymity witnessed the cleanup and confirmed the former inmates’ accounts.

When the investigators arrived, they were “angrily talking with each other about the fact that the whole cell has been bleached,” Mr. Berrong said. “They said, ‘There’s nothing here.’”

The M.B.I.’s investigative report on Mr. Aycock’s death, provided by Mr. Tindell, makes no mention of the cleanup.

Mr. Tindell said he spoke with the agent responsible for the report, who said he did not recall the cell being cleaned or seeing men enter Mr. Aycock’s cell in security camera footage. Mr. Tindell said the footage was not preserved by the M.B.I.

The Rankin County Sheriff’s Department declined to release investigative records related to the case, citing a state law that allows police agencies to withhold such materials.

The M.B.I.’s file on the case amounts to a two-paragraph summary of the investigation and the autopsy report. There are no photos or security camera footage and no interview descriptions, even though several inmates said they were interrogated by investigators.

“The reporting at the time obviously left some things to be desired,” Mr. Tindell said in an interview.

The Rankin County Sheriff’s Department declined to release records related to the case, citing a state law that allows police agencies to withhold such materials.Credit...Rory Doyle for The New York Times

In the years since he took over the department in 2020, the agency has improved its record-keeping practices by “making sure that we had witness lists, that we had narratives, that there was a narrative for everybody that you interviewed and that supervisors had to review their work,” he said. “In this report, there’s none of those things.”

Two days after the M.B.I. filed its report concluding that Mr. Aycock had died from an accidental fall, the Mississippi state medical examiner ruled his death an accident.

Local Investigations

This article was reported and edited as part of the Local Investigations Fellowship, a New York Times program where local reporters produce investigative work about their communities, and supported in part by a grant from the Pulitzer Center.

Three pathologists who reviewed the autopsy at the request of reporters said that while it was reasonable to conclude he had died accidentally given what the authorities knew at the time, Mr. Berrong’s account aligned with the injuries recorded in Mr. Aycock’s autopsy.

Dr. Thomas Andrew, the former chief medical examiner of New Hampshire, said that he would have told the agents assigned to the case to investigate further before he could reach a determination.

Details missing from the report, like pictures of Mr. Aycock’s cell and security camera footage, could have led examiners to a different conclusion, he said.

The M.B.I. had an opportunity to reopen the case in 2022, when an inmate eyewitness told a Rankin County Sheriff’s Department detective that he had seen Mr. Berrong and another inmate leave Mr. Aycock’s cell moments before guards found him lying in a pool of blood.

The witness, who was being held in the jail in 2018, spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity, citing fears of retaliation from Mr. Berrong’s associates.

The detective relayed the information to an M.B.I. agent, the eyewitness said, but the authorities never contacted him again. The witness said that he also wrote a letter to the M.B.I. detailing what he had seen, and that his son called the Rankin County District Attorney’s Office to report the information, but they never heard back from the agencies.

To read more CLICK HERE