Mangione Says U.S. Bid to Execute Him Is an Instagram Stunt
Lawyers for Luigi Mangione asked a federal court on Friday to bar prosecutors from seeking the death penalty against him, arguing that Attorney General Pam Bondi's recently announced decision to do so was 'explicitly and unapologetically political.'
Mr. Mangione, 26, has been charged with the Dec. 4 fatal shooting of a health care executive, Brian Thompson, 50, as he was walking to an early morning conference at the New York Hilton Midtown. On April 1, Ms. Bondi announced in a news release that she had directed federal prosecutors to seek capital punishment in the case 'as we carry out President Trump's agenda to stop violent crime and Make America Safe Again.'
Mr. Mangione's lawyers argued that Ms. Bondi's real motive in making the announcement was to garner press attention, noting that she talked about her decision in a Fox News Sunday interview and 'publicly released her order so she would have 'content' for her newly launched Instagram account.'
They said she had also violated longstanding Justice Department protocols to ensure such decisions were made fairly.
The lawyers also said a request they had made to the Trump Justice Department to allow them three months to investigate and prepare a thorough submission arguing against death penalty in the case was ignored. The lawyers had been able to make written and oral presentations to the government only in January, in the waning days of the Biden administration.
'These are not normal times,' Mr. Mangione's lawyers wrote. By directing prosecutors in the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York to seek the death penalty 'without affording even a modicum of process,' the lawyers said, Ms. Bondi was 'being consistent with the new culture of the highest levels of the Justice Department, one that values personal will over process, publicity over discretion and partisan politics over justice.'
Mr. Mangione has not yet been indicted in federal court in Mr. Thompson's killing, but he is being held on a criminal complaint with four counts, including using a firearm to commit murder, which carries a maximum potential sentence of death.
Mr. Mangione's lawyers, in their filing, also argued that Ms. Bondi's statements will 'prejudice the grand jury' that is asked to hear the case and return an indictment against him.
A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the filing by Mr. Mangione's lawyers, and a Southern District spokesman declined to comment.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
33 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Tariffs Can Stay in Place Longer, US Appeals Court Says
Donald Trump can continue to enforce his global tariffs for now, a federal appeals court held in a win for the president on one of his signature economic policies. The order Tuesday by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit extends an earlier, short-term reprieve for the administration as it presses a challenge to a lower court ruling last month that blocked the tariffs. The Justice Department had argued that US officials' concerns about ongoing trade negotiations outweighed the economic harm claimed by the small businesses that sued.
Hamilton Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump administration says he has the authority to cancel national monuments that protect landscapes
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Lawyers for President Donald Trump's administration say he has the authority to abolish national monuments meant to protect historical and archaeological sites across broad landscapes, including two in California created by his predecessor at the request of Native American tribes. A Justice Department legal opinion released Tuesday disavowed a 1938 determination that monuments created by previous presidents under the Antiquities Act can't be revoked. The department said presidents can cancel monument designations if protections aren't warranted. The finding comes as the Interior Department under Trump has been weighing changes to monuments across the nation as part of the administration's push to expand U.S. energy production. The Republican in his first term reduced the size of two Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monuments in Utah, calling them a 'massive land grab.' He also lifted fishing restrictions within a sprawling marine monument off the New England Coast. Former President Joe Biden reversed the moves and restored the monuments. noting that Bears Ears was the first national monument to be established at the request of federally recognized tribes. The two monuments singled out in the new Justice Department opinion were designated by Biden in his final days in office: Chuckwalla National Monument, in Southern California near Joshua Tree National Park, and Sáttítla Highlands National Monument, in Northern California. The Democrat's declarations for the monuments barred oil and natural gas drilling and mining on the 624,000-acre (2,400-square-kilometer) Chuckwalla site, and the roughly 225,000 acres (800 square kilometers) Sáttítla Highlands site near the California-Oregon border. Chuckwalla has natural wonders including the Painted Canyon of Mecca Hills and Alligator Rock, and it is home to rare species of plants and animals like the desert bighorn sheep and the Chuckwalla lizard. The Sáttítla Highlands include the ancestral homelands of and are sacred to the Pit River Tribe and Modoc Peoples. All but three presidents have used the 1906 Antiquities Act to protect unique landscapes and cultural resources, and about half the national parks in the U.S. were first designated as monuments. But critics of monument designations under Biden and Obama say the protective boundaries were stretched too far, hindering mining for critical minerals. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora Pettit wrote in the Trump administration opinion that Biden's protections of Chuckwalla and the Sattítla Highlands were part of the Democrat's attempts to create for himself an environmental legacy that includes more places to hike, bike, camp or hunt. 'Such activities are entirely expected in a park, but they are wholly unrelated to (if not outright incompatible with) the protection of scientific or historical monuments,' Pettit wrote. Trump in April lifted commercial fishing prohibitions within an expansive marine monument in the Pacific Ocean created under former President Barack Obama. Environmental groups have anticipated more actions against monuments by Trump since his first days in office. They said Tuesday's Justice Department opinion doesn't give him the authority to shrink monuments at will. 'Americans overwhelmingly support our public lands and oppose seeing them dismantled or destroyed,' said Axie Navas with The Wilderness Society. Since 1912, presidents have issued more than a dozen proclamations that diminished monuments but did not outright revoke them, according to a National Park Service database. Dwight Eisenhower was most active in undoing the proclamations of his predecessors as he diminished six monuments, including Arches in Utah, Great Sand Dunes in Colorado and Glacier Bay in Alaska, which have all since become national parks. Trump's moves to shrink the Utah monuments in his first term were challenged by environmental groups that said protections for the sites safeguard water supplies and wildlife while preserving cultural sites. The reductions were reversed by Biden before the case was resolved, and it remains pending. President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act after lobbying by educators and scientists who wanted to protect sites from artifact looting and haphazard collecting by individuals. It was the first law in the U.S. to establish legal protections for cultural and natural resources of historic or scientific interest on federal lands.
Politico
37 minutes ago
- Politico
How the Indictment Against Rep. LaMonica McIver Could Flop
The indictment of Rep. LaMonica McIver on Tuesday marks the latest dramatic escalation in the Trump administration's effort to quell public and political opposition to the president's crackdown on illegal immigration. It's also likely to be a dud. The decision to proceed with an indictment following the initial charges against the New Jersey Democrat comes at a politically volatile moment — following President Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard and the Marines in response to protests in Los Angeles, and in the midst of ongoing wrangling over the scope and legality of the administration's deportation effort. In recent weeks, that effort has generated heartrending images from courthouse arrests and more admissions of mistaken deportations from the Justice Department. Meanwhile, the administration is moving to deport hundreds of thousands of people who entered the country legally under the last administration. The Justice Department's prosecution of McIver — stemming from a scuffle with Homeland Security agents in Newark last month — cannot be disentangled from this context. And that may ultimately prove to be the undoing of the case. Ordinarily, there is a baseline assumption in any given federal prosecution that the Justice Department will obtain a conviction, because that is what happens more than 90 percent of the time. In McIver's case, however, the factual circumstances and charges are unique, and they come with all sorts of quirks and political freight — not the least of which is the fact that the administration prosecuting her over a fracas at a government facility is the same one that pardoned hundreds of people accused (and in many cases convicted) of violently assaulting or resisting officers during the siege of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Ultimately, conviction at a trial — if it ever gets there — is far from assured. And for a variety of reasons, the odds that McIver will ever spend a day in prison on the charges appear to be low, if not close to zero. The indictment charges McIver with two felony counts of physically assaulting, resisting or impeding two Homeland Security agents during an altercation that occurred last month after McIver and two other House members showed up to inspect an ICE detention facility in Newark. New Jersey Mayor Ras Baraka was also present. A third count in the indictment appears to charge McIver for the same conduct in the form of a single misdemeanor. Prosecutors initially charged McIver with the first two counts in a criminal complaint shortly after the encounter. A criminal complaint is a charging document that requires approval only by a magistrate judge, and it is often used when prosecutors want to begin a case quickly (without having to empanel and present evidence to a grand jury). In order to proceed on felony charges, however, prosecutors must eventually get an indictment from a grand jury. The Justice Department alleges that one of the agents instructed Baraka to leave a secure part of the area outside the facility while at the same time acknowledging that as a member of Congress — who has the legal right to inspect ICE detention facilities without providing advance notice — McIver could remain. A scuffle ensued as McIver and others sought to prevent the removal of Baraka, who was eventually arrested on a trespassing charge. The indictment alleges that McIver 'slammed her forearm into the body' of one agent and 'reached out and tried to restrain [him] by forcibly grabbing him.' The indictment further alleges that, after Baraka's arrest, McIver 'pushed past' the second officer and used 'each of her forearms to forcibly strike [him] as she returned inside of the secured area of the facility.' The felony charges come with a maximum penalty of eight years — and no readily identifiable precedent. (The misdemeanor count maxes out at a year.) We are relatively used to seeing members of Congress charged with white-collar crimes, like insider trading or bribery. Lawmakers are also sometimes arrested during nonviolent protests. That happened, for instance, during the Biden administration, when 17 members of Congress were arrested during a protest outside the Supreme Court over abortion rights. They each paid a $50 fine to resolve the matter. The claim against McIver is that she attempted to forcibly interfere with Baraka's arrest, but the first red flag against DOJ's argument is that prosecutors quickly dropped the charge against Baraka. The federal magistrate judge overseeing the Baraka case described the 'hasty arrest' as a 'worrisome misstep' and the dismissal of the charge as an 'embarrassing retraction.' It is not the sort of fact pattern that generally gives rise to prosecutions of secondary figures on the scene, much less a sitting member of Congress. McIver also has defenses that she can assert at the pretrial stages and, if necessary, during a trial itself. One possible defense out of the gate is for McIver to invoke the Constitution's Speech and Debate clause, which provides civil and criminal immunity for members of Congress engaged in legislative activity, including oversight activity. Still, it is not clear how a judge would resolve this argument, since the law in this area is notoriously unclear, and cases are often decided on fact-specific grounds. Here, there is little question that McIver's oversight activity at the facility — at least as an initial matter — is entitled to some form of criminal immunity, but the dispute will concern the precise scope of that protection. Prosecutors are likely to argue that any such immunity does not extend to a physical assault on federal law enforcement officers because that particular conduct is not legislative in nature. If the case does go to trial, it should be brief — perhaps a one- or two-day affair. McIver is being represented by Paul Fishman, a well-regarded former U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, who has previewed the trial defense in comments to the press in which he has described a 'melee' prompted by federal agents who were seeking to arrest Baraka and a resulting 'fracas' that enveloped McIver. 'At times she was barely able to keep her balance,' Fishman said, and at others 'she was shoved and seemed to raise her arm in an effort to free it.' He added, 'To say a jury could conclude she should be convicted criminally, when the charges against Baraka have already been dismissed, is a stretch to say the least — especially given that she was not arrested at the scene and agents later allowed her to conduct the site visit.' This is a sound defense, particularly given the fact that the statute requires the Justice Department to establish — beyond a reasonable doubt — that McIver 'forcibly' assaulted or resisted law enforcement officers. The video available to date is not crystal clear about what took place, but it does suggest something far less nefarious — a regrettable scrum in which McIver, who is not exactly a towering or physically intimidating figure, tried to maintain her balance while reacting to a highly unusual altercation with officers that was premised on an arrest that they have since effectively disavowed. The politics of the venue could also come into play and work sharply against the Justice Department. The jury pool for the court in Newark where McIver was charged is drawn from counties in northern New Jersey that, in the aggregate, are not favorable terrain for Trump. Former Vice President Kamala Harris outperformed Trump in those counties in the 2024 election by a margin of roughly 55-42 percentage points. Then there is the broader political context, which may prove impossible for some jurors to ignore. Shortly after McIver's initial arrest, Trump told reporters, 'She was shoving federal agents. She was out of control. The days of that crap are over in this country.' This may come as news to anyone whose memory stretches all the way back to January, when Trump pardoned hundreds of violent criminals who tried to overrun the U.S. Capitol in a clash with law enforcement in order to overturn the 2020 election in his favor. Or to anyone who knows that Trump has pardoned or commuted the prison sentences of dozens of political allies who were convicted of serious offenses. Trump's campaign of selective and politically expedient benevolence is not exactly consistent with the tough-on-crime ethos that he has otherwise tried to project. Under the circumstances, it is not hard to envision one or more jurors refusing to convict McIver on these grounds alone — or, indeed, for her to be fully acquitted by a unanimous verdict of the jurors. The charges certainly appear to many as both politically motivated and, at a bare minimum, unwarranted as a matter of appropriate prosecutorial discretion. Meanwhile, in the event that McIver is convicted in a trial, the odds of her being sentenced to any prison time are low. Perhaps she would get a fine, but she would be a first-time offender, and one of the factors that sentencing judges must consider is 'the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.' In that context, if Justice Department prosecutors actually sought prison time, Trump's Jan. 6 pardons could present a major — and perhaps insurmountable — obstacle. Not surprisingly, the Trump administration has already sought to project an air of confidence around the case in public comments, with acting New Jersey U.S. Attorney (and former Trump lawyer) Alina Habba saying that Tuesday's 'decision by the grand jury is the next step in a process that my Office will pursue to a just end.' The truth is that, depending on how things play out, the whole thing could eventually blow up in their faces.
