logo
Things to know about the release of federal documents related to MLK's assassination

Things to know about the release of federal documents related to MLK's assassination

Independent4 days ago
Federal records related to the investigation into the 1968 assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. were released on Monday, following the disclosure in March of tens of thousands of documents about the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
In January, President Donald Trump ordered the release of thousands of classified governmental documents about Kennedy's assassination, while also moving to declassify federal records related to the deaths of New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and King more than five decades ago.
Trump ordered Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Attorney General Pam Bondi to coordinate with other government officials to review records related to the assassinations of RFK and King, and present a plan to the president for their 'complete release.' Some 10,000 pages of records about the RFK assassination were released April 18.
Justice Department attorneys later asked a federal judge to end a sealing order for the records nearly two years ahead of its expiration date. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which King led, is opposed to unsealing any of the records for privacy reasons. The organization's lawyers said King's relatives also wanted to keep the files under seal.
Scholars, history buffs and journalists have been preparing to study the documents to find new information about the civil rights leader's assassination on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee.
The King family's statement released after Trump's order in January said they hoped to get an opportunity to review the files as a family prior to its public release. King's family, including his two living children, Martin III and Bernice, was given advance notice of the release and had their own teams reviewing the records ahead of the public disclosure.
In a statement released Monday, King's children called their father's case a 'captivating public curiosity for decades.' But they also emphasized the personal nature of the matter and urged that 'these files must be viewed within their full historical context.'
'We ask those who engage with the release of these files to do so with empathy, restraint, and respect for our family's continuing grief,' the statement said.
Here is what we know about the assassination and what scholars had to say ahead of the release of the documents.
In Memphis, shots ring out
King was standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel, heading to dinner with a few friends, when he was shot and killed.
King had been in Memphis to support a sanitation workers strike protesting poor working conditions and low pay. The night before the assassination, King delivered the famous 'Mountaintop' speech on a stormy night at the Mason Temple in Memphis.
An earlier march on Beale Street had turned violent, and King had returned to Memphis to lead another march as an expression of nonviolent protest. King also had been planning the Poor People's Campaign to speak out against economic injustice.
The FBI 's investigation
After a long manhunt, James Earl Ray was captured in London, and he pleaded guilty to assassinating King. He later renounced that plea and maintained his innocence until his death in 1998.
FBI documents released over the years show how the bureau wiretapped King's telephone lines, bugged his hotel rooms and used informants to get information against him.
'He was relentlessly targeted by an invasive, predatory, and deeply disturbing disinformation and surveillance campaign,' the King family statement said.
King family's response to the investigation
Members of King's family, and others, have questioned whether Ray acted alone, or if he was even involved. King's widow, Coretta Scott King, asked for the probe to be reopened, and in 1998, then-Attorney General Janet Reno directed the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department to do so.
The Justice Department said it 'found nothing to disturb the 1969 judicial determination that James Earl Ray murdered Dr. King.'
Dexter King, one of King's children, met with Ray in prison in 1997, saying afterwards that he believed Ray's claims of innocence. Dexter King died in 2024.
With the support of King's family, a civil trial in state court was held in Memphis in 1999 against Loyd Jowers, a man alleged to have known about a conspiracy to assassinate King. Dozens of witnesses testified, and a Memphis jury found Jowers and unnamed others, including government agencies, participated in a conspiracy to assassinate King.
What will the public see in the newly released documents?
It's not clear what the records will actually show.
King scholars, for example, would like to see what information the FBI was discussing and circulating as part of their investigation, said Ryan Jones, director of history, interpretation and curatorial services at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis.
'That's critical given the fact the American public, at that time, was unaware that the FBI that is involved in the investigation, was leading a smear campaign to discredit the same man while he was alive,' Jones said. 'They were the same bureau who was receiving notices of assassination attempts against King and ignored them.'
Academics who have studied King also would like to see information about the FBI's surveillance of King, including the extent they went to get details about his personal life, track him, and try to discredit him as anti-American, said Lerone A. Martin, director of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University.
However, Martin said he does not expect that the documents will have a 'smoking gun that will finally say, 'See, this is 100% evidence that the FBI was involved in this assassination.''
'We have to view these documents with an eye of suspicion because of the extent the FBI was willing to go to, to try to discredit him,' Martin said.
Why now?
Trump's order about the records release said it is in the 'national interest' to release the records.
'Their families and the American people deserve transparency and truth,' the order said.
However, the timing has led to skepticism from some observers.
Jones questioned why the American public had not been able to see these documents much earlier.
'Why were they sealed on the basis of national security, if the assassin was in prison outside of Nashville?' he said.
Jones said there are scholars who think the records release is a 'PR stunt' by a presidential administration that is 'rewriting, omitting the advances of some people that are tied to people of color, or diversity.'
The Pentagon has faced questions from lawmakers and citizens over the removal of military heroes and historic mentions from Defense Department websites and social media pages after it purged online content that promoted women or minorities. In response, the department restored some of those posts.
Martin said Trump's motivation could be part of an effort to shed doubt on government institutions.
'It could be an opportunity for the Trump administration to say, 'See, the FBI is evil, I've been trying to tell you this. This is why I've put (FBI director) Kash Patel in office because he's cleaning out the Deep State,'' Martin said.
Another factor could be the two attempts on Trump's life as he was campaigning for a second presidential term, and a desire to 'expose the broader history of U.S. assassinations,' said Brian Kwoba, an associate history professor at the University of Memphis.
'That said, it is still a little bit confusing because it's not clear why any U.S. president, including Trump, would want to open up files that could be damaging to the United States and its image both in the U.S. and abroad,' he said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Manhunt for inmate ‘mistakenly' released from New Orleans jail where 10 previously escaped
Manhunt for inmate ‘mistakenly' released from New Orleans jail where 10 previously escaped

The Independent

time29 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Manhunt for inmate ‘mistakenly' released from New Orleans jail where 10 previously escaped

Authorities in New Orleans are searching for a man with a "violent criminal history," who was 'mistakenly released' from a jail where 10 inmates escaped earlier this year. Khalil Bryan, 30, was released from the Orleans Parish Jail on Friday in what authorities refer to as "human error," after he was confused with another inmate with a 'similar last name', according to Orleans Parish Sheriff Susan Hutson. 'I want to make a sincere apology to the people of New Orleans. The mistaken release of Khalil Bryan was a serious error, and as sheriff, I take full responsibility,' Hutson told reporters at a press conference. It comes just over two months after the escape of 10 inmates from the same jail on May 16. While eight were recaptured relatively quickly by authorities, one evaded police until June, and the final inmate remains at large. On Friday, Superintendent Ann Kirkpatrick of the New Orleans Police Department, addressed Bryan directly, telling him that he was 'a fugitive.' 'Even though it was a mistaken release from custody, you are on notice. You are a fugitive,' Kirkpatrick said. 'I'm going to ask that you turn yourself in. 'You and others who may be harboring him at this moment will be subject to prosecution yourself, because you are on notice. Mr Bryan is a fugitive at this point.' Explaining how Bryan's release was possible, Hutson explained the mishap stemmed 'from a clerical misidentification where he was confused with another individual sharing a similar last name.' 'While our systems are designed to catch these discrepancies, human error led to a breakdown in the verification process,' she said. Hutson added that an internal investigation had been launched and the Parish Sheriff's Office was working with all relevant partners to locate Bryan. 'I want the public to know this should not have happened,' she said. 'It was a failure of internal processes, and the public has every right to expect better.' Hutson added that disciplinary action would be 'forthcoming.' Prior to his mistaken release, Bryan was being held on charges including possession of stolen property, drug paraphernalia and resisting an officer. He has an active warrant for aggravated assault with a firearm, domestic abuse, child endangerment and home invasion, as well as a "violent criminal history," including aggravated burglary, aggravated assault with a weapon and aggravated criminal damage to property, Kirkpatrick said. Anyone with information about Bryan's whereabouts are urged to call police and authorities warn he should not be approached.

Victory for Christian foster mom agency tried to ban after she said she wouldn't give trans child hormones
Victory for Christian foster mom agency tried to ban after she said she wouldn't give trans child hormones

Daily Mail​

time30 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Victory for Christian foster mom agency tried to ban after she said she wouldn't give trans child hormones

A widowed Christian mom-of-five scored a major legal victory after a federal appeals court ruled that the state of Oregon violated her constitutional rights by barring her from adopting foster children because of her refusal to support gender transitions. Jessica Bates, who says her faith prevents her from using preferred pronouns or facilitating hormone treatments, was blocked by the state after she said she could not affirm an LGBTQ + child's identity. She sued - and now, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with her, calling the state's policy a violation of her free speech and religious freedom. 'This is a win not just for me, but for people of faith who want to help kids without compromising their beliefs,' Bates said after the ruling. In a 2-1 decision issued on Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) policy that effectively barred Bates from becoming a foster parent. Bates was refusing to comply with the state's requirement to 'respect, accept and support' a foster child's gender identity and sexual orientation. 'We hold that Oregon's policy violates the First Amendment as applied to Bates,' wrote Judge Daniel Bress in the court's majority opinion, joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins. The court ordered a preliminary injunction blocking the state from using its current policy to prevent Bates from moving forward with the adoption process. Bates, who lives in Malheur County, said she felt 'called by God' to care for additional children after losing her husband. The five children she already has are her biological kids. She had hoped to adopt two siblings under the age of nine but was disqualified after refusing to sign a commitment to fully affirm an LGBTQ+ child's identity, including using chosen names and pronouns or providing access to gender-related medical treatments. 'I believe God gives us our gender/sex and it's not something we get to choose,' Bates wrote in her application. 'I have no problem loving them and accepting them as they are, but I would not encourage them in this behavior.' The state of Oregon argued that its policy is essential to ensure the safety and well-being of vulnerable children in its custody. But the appeals court disagreed, finding the regulation was overly broad and imposed an unconstitutional burden on Bates' free speech and religious liberty. 'It is not narrowly tailored to impose on Bates an extreme and blanket rule that she may adopt no child at all based on her religious faith,' Bress wrote. The court emphasized that the state could simply avoid placing LGBTQ+ children with Bates while still allowing her to foster or adopt. The lone dissent came from Judge Richard Clifton, who warned that Bates was seeking to foster 'only on her terms,' and that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting children from potential rejection or harm. 'Parents would not be expected to entrust their children to caregivers who volunteer that they will not respect the child's self-determined gender identity,' Clifton wrote. The case has drawn national attention and praise from conservative groups, including the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represented Bates. 'Because caregivers like Jessica cannot promote Oregon's dangerous gender ideology to young kids and take them to events like pride parades, the state considers them to be unfit parents,' said ADF senior counsel Jonathan Scruggs. 'That is false and incredibly dangerous, needlessly depriving kids of opportunities to find a loving home. The 9th Circuit was right to remind Oregon that the foster and adoption system is supposed to serve the best interests of children, not the state's ideological crusade.' In an interview with KGW8, Bates reiterated her commitment to loving all children in her care, but said she would not affirm an LGBTQ+ identity or allow permanent medical interventions like hormone therapy. 'I'm still gonna love them deeply,' she said. 'But just like my biologicals, I probably will not allow them to do any, like, permanent... hormone injections, anything that's going to rob them of their God-given body.' Bates said she would not use a child's chosen name or pronouns and would instead steer the conversation toward her Christian faith. 'God makes our identity,' she said. 'It might not feel like a gift right now... but that's something actually really special, and you are beautiful and perfect, just how you are right now.' Asked whether she would reject an LGBTQ+ child, Bates said she would never kick a child out - except in cases of 'sexually aberrant' behavior. 'The Christian sex ethic is very narrow and simple... any of the sexual activity that's outside of God's defined institution of marriage is something I would not be OK with in my house,' she added. The court's decision now sends the case back to a lower court in Oregon, where Bates' constitutional claims will be reconsidered under strict scrutiny - the most rigorous standard in constitutional law. Historically, policies that fail this test are rarely upheld. ODHS has not yet said whether it plans to appeal the decision, but a spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Justice acknowledged the setback. 'We are disappointed in the ruling but are reviewing to determine next steps,' said Jenny Hansson. Meanwhile, Bates says she intends to continue the foster care certification process - and insists that her position is about faith, not hatred. 'I would hope that we would have open communication,' she said. 'But I would probably, you know, remind them of Christ, my Christian faith that... God makes our identity, and that's something sacred and holy.' The ruling is expected to have wide ramifications for how states balance nondiscrimination policies with religious freedom in the child welfare system and is already being hailed by Christian conservatives as a landmark win in the culture wars.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store