Springfield, Ohio, sues neo-Nazi group that it says led Haitian intimidation
An Ohio city that was racked with chaos and threats last year related to an influx of Haitian immigrants filed a lawsuit on Thursday against a neo-Nazi group that it alleges was at the heart of the onslaught.
The city of Springfield, Mayor Rob Rue and several others sued the Blood Tribe, leaders Christopher Pohlhaus and Drake Berentz and seven unnamed followers in U.S. District Court in Dayton.
They accuse the group of 'engaging in, and inciting, a campaign of harassment and intimidation, motivated by ethnic and racial hatred, against those who supported Springfield's Haitian community in the face of Defendants' racist attacks.'
With legal help from the Anti-Defamation League, the plaintiffs are asking the court for a jury trial seeking to block the group from making further threats and to impose damages.
The court file did not list an attorney for the Blood Tribe. Messages were left at phone numbers listed under Pohlhaus' and Berentz's names.
Springfield, a city of roughly 60,000 west of Columbus, has seen its Haitian population grow to about 10,000 people in recent years, as Haitians have fled violence in their home country in search of stability and employment. Their growing numbers caused friction with local residents, as schools, roads, hospitals and social programs were taxed by the large population — and, particularly, after a child was killed in 2023 when a Haitian immigrant driver hit a school bus.
As a candidate, Republican President Donald Trump honed worldwide attention on the city during a September presidential debate with Democratic rival Kamala Harris, when he amplified false claims that Springfield's Haitians were abducting and eating people's cats and dogs.
Thursday's complaint alleges that the Blood Tribe first coordinated a 'hit' against the city before that, in July, casting the influx of Haitians as an 'invasion' that was threatening Springfield's 'good White residents.'
'Members of the Blood Tribe heeded the call,' the complaint said. 'Over the next few months, the Blood Tribe and its members and associates unleashed a torrent of hateful conduct, including acts of harassment, bomb threats, and death threats, against Springfield residents who spoke out in support of the Haitian community.'
The Blood Tribe showed up at the city's jazz and blues festival in August, according to the court document, displaying guns, waving swastika flags and wearing matching red shirts, black pants and ski masks. They made their way to City Hall, where Berentz delivered a 'racist and antisemitic rant,' to which followers responded with chants of 'Seig Heil' and Nazi salutes.
Additional actions the lawsuit alleges against the group include harassing voicemails, hateful emails and social media posts demeaning the plaintiffs and their families. The complaint says that group members also used dating apps to send men looking for drugs and sex to the residents' homes late at night and publicized their personal information with the intent of getting others to join in the harassment.
The lawsuit makes no direct reference to Trump's remarks but notes that Pohlhaus 'gleefully took credit for the growing notoriety' the false claims gained as they spread around the world after the debate.
The leader of a national advocacy group for Haitians sought to invoke a private-citizen right to file criminal charges against Trump and his then-running mate, Vice President JD Vance, shortly after the debate, alleging they played a role in the chaos and threats Springfield experienced.
A panel of local judges decided in October to refer the matter to the county prosecutor for further investigation, rejecting the Haitian Bridge Alliance's call to issue arrest warrants or misdemeanor summonses to both men.
The alliance awaits a decision on an appeal it has filed in the Ohio Supreme Court. That lawsuit alleges that Clark County Municipal Court Judges Valerie Wilt, Daniel Carey and Stephen Schumaker 'patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction' to meet as a group as they did when making the referral to the prosecutor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Blue state governors to testify on "sanctuary policies" amid L.A. protests over immigration raids
Washington — Three Democratic governors are defending their responses to the migrant crisis and dispute claims of failing to cooperate with federal authorities, according to prepared remarks that will be delivered Thursday before a House oversight panel. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz are among the witnesses scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on so-called "sanctuary policies". "Let me be clear: Sanctuary policies don't protect Americans. They protect criminal illegal aliens," Oversight Chair James Comer, a Kentucky Republican will say in his opening statement. The governors' appearances come as President Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom remain embroiled in a legal and political standoff over the deployment of the National Guard troops and Marines to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles. Demonstrations have spread to other U.S. cities, including New York and Chicago following a series of deportation raids. "Minnesota is not a sanctuary state," Walz will tell lawmakers. "It is ridiculous to suggest that Minnesota — a state that is over 1,500 miles away from the Southern border and a thousand miles from lawmakers in Washington, D.C. who decide and implement border policy is somehow responsible for a failure of immigration enforcement." The former vice presidential candidate has drawn intense scrutiny not only over immigration policy but also for his handling of social justice protests that broke out in Minneapolis following the death of George Floyd in 2020. Trump administration officials have cited Walz' actions to justify the president's decision to federalize troops in California. While Walz does not appear to directly address the controversy in his testimony, he says he is "disappointed" in the federal government's overall approach. "As governor of Minnesota, it is incumbent on me to use the state's resources to help Minnesota families—not turn those resources over to the administration so they can stage another photo-op in tactical gear or accidentally deport more children without observing due process," Walz is set to say. Ahead of the hearing, the GOP-led panel released a video compilation of various news clips accusing the governors of "shielding" undocumented immigrants and "causing chaos" in their states. A memo from Hochul's office suggested the hearing could be "derailed by wild accusations" and "twisted characterizations" but noted the governor's position is "clear" when it comes to supporting strong borders and comprehensive immigration reform. "New York state cooperates with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in criminal cases," Hochul says. "And our values as New Yorkers demand that we treat those who arrive here in search of a better life with dignity and reject policies that tear law-abiding families apart." Hochul also addresses the influx of more than 220,000 migrants to New York City since early 2022, many of whom were bussed from border states, calling it "an unprecedented humanitarian crisis." "We have responded to this crisis with both compassion and pragmatism," Hochul states."And as a result, we largely prevented what could have become an additional crisis — one of street homelessness and tent cities." Pritzker says Illinois also stepped up to the challenge, and blamed the lack of federal intervention and cooperation from border states for exacerbating the problem. "As governor, my responsibility is to ensure that all Illinoisans feel safe in their homes, their businesses, and their communities," Pritzker is prepared to say. "That is why my administration continued to make significant investments in public safety, even as our resources were strained because of the lack of federal support during the crisis — expanding our state police force and investing in efforts to reduce gun violence." Thursday's session follows a March hearing on sanctuary cities with four Democratic mayors: Eric Adams, of New York, Mike Johnston of Denver, Brandon Johnson of Chicago and Michelle Wu of Boston. Comer launched an investigation in January into "sanctuary jurisdictions", including states, counties or cities, to examine their impact on public safety and federal immigration enforcement. President Trump has vowed to crack down on localities that don't back his immigration agenda. Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security removed its list of sanctuary jurisdictions after several cities challenged the findings.
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Democratic governors will defend immigration policies before Republican-led House panel
WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump spars with California's governor over immigration enforcement, Republicans in Congress are calling other Democratic governors to the Capitol on Thursday to question them over policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform posted a video ahead of the hearing highlighting crimes allegedly committed by immigrants in the U.S. illegally and pledging that 'sanctuary state governors will answer to the American people.' The hearing is to include testimony from Govs. JB Pritzker of Illinois, Tim Walz of Minnesota and Kathy Hochul of New York. There's no legal definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction, but the term generally refers to governments with policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Courts previously have upheld the legality of such laws. But Trump's administration has sued Colorado, Illinois, New York and several cities — including Chicago and Rochester, New York — asserting their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal law. Illinois, Minnesota and New York also were among 14 states and hundreds of cities and counties recently listed by the Department of Homeland Security as 'sanctuary jurisdictions defying federal immigration law.' The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. As Trump steps up immigration enforcement, some Democratic-led states have intensified their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting cooperation with immigration agents. Following clashes between crowds of protesters and immigration agents in Los Angeles, Trump deployed the National Guard to protect federal buildings and agents, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom accused Trump of declaring 'a war' on the underpinnings of American democracy. The House Oversight Committee has long been a partisan battleground, and in recent months it has turned its focus to immigration policy. Thursday's hearing follows a similar one in March in which the Republican-led committee questioned the Democratic mayors of Chicago, Boston, Denver and New York about sanctuary policies. Heavily Democratic Chicago has been a sanctuary city for decades. In 2017, then-Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed legislation creating statewide protections for immigrants. The Illinois Trust Act prohibits police from searching, arresting or detaining people solely because of their immigration status. But it allows local authorities to hold people for federal immigration authorities if there's a valid criminal warrant. Pritzker, who succeeded Rauner in 2019, said in remarks prepared for the House committee that violent criminals 'have no place on our streets, and if they are undocumented, I want them out of Illinois and out of our country.' 'But we will not divert our limited resources and officers to do the job of the federal government when it is not in the best interest of our state, our local communities, or the safety of our residents,' he said. Pritzker has been among Trump's most outspoken opponents and is considered a potential 2028 presidential candidate. He said Illinois has provided shelter and services to more than 50,000 immigrants who were sent there from other states. A Department of Justice lawsuit against New York challenges a 2019 law that allows immigrants illegally in the U.S. to receive New York driver's licenses and shields driver's license data from federal immigration authorities. That built upon a 2017 executive order by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo that prohibited New York officials from inquiring about or disclosing a person's immigration status to federal authorities, unless required by law. Hochul's office said law enforcement officers still can cooperate with federal immigration authorities when people are convicted of or under investigation for crimes. Since Hochul took office in 2021, her office said, the state has transferred more than 1,300 incarcerated noncitizens to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the completion of their state sentences. Minnesota doesn't have a statewide sanctuary law protecting immigrants in the U.S. illegally, though Minneapolis and St. Paul both restrict the extent to which police and city employees can cooperate with immigration enforcement. Some laws signed by Walz have secured benefits for people regardless of immigration status. But at least one of those is getting rolled back. The Minnesota Legislature, meeting in a special session, passed legislation Monday to repeal a 2023 law that allowed adults in the U.S. illegally to be covered under a state-run health care program for the working poor. Walz insisted on maintaining eligibility for children who aren't in the country legally, ___ Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo. Also contributing were Associated Press writers Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, N.Y.; Steve Karnowski in St. Paul, Minn.; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The $11 trillion gap between White House and economists on Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill
An array of economists — from the Congressional Budget Office to the Tax Foundation to the Penn-Wharton Budget Model — have reached a similar conclusion: Trump's signature legislation comes with a price tag in the neighborhood of $3 trillion over the next decade. They're all wrong, the White House says. And not just by a little. President Trump and his aides have instead offered claims that the bill will make money and that the final tally for both the tax-cutting legislation and other parts of the Trump agenda will usher in a new golden age not just for the US economy but also for government debt. The claims from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue go as high as $8 trillion in black ink (an $11 trillion chasm with the experts) in claims that go beyond what even Capitol Hill Republicans are projecting. As for reconciling the two, some economists essentially throw up their hands. "You can't square it because it's ridiculous," Erica York of the Tax Foundation said. "The bill unambiguously will increase deficits, it will not contribute that much to economic growth," she added, noting that the bill is largely focused on extending current tax rates that would not be expected to push the economy significantly upward from current levels. Yet the White House has remained steadfast even as this gap has led to increased tensions as the bill goes through another round of adjustments on Capitol Hill. A Wednesday appearance before Congress by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was marked by lawmakers — mostly Democratic, but some Republicans as well — raising the debt issue. In one colorful moment, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson of California asked Bessent to point to an independent expert "not on the payroll of this administration" who says this bill will not add to our debt. Bessent then cited Arthur Laffer, the former Reagan official and longtime Trump supporter who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the president's first term. The comment led to laughter in the chamber, with Thompson shooting back, "I don't think that one counts." It was a hearing where Bessent declined to repeat some of the administration's most aggressive claims, saying instead that "it remains to be seen" whether the bill will add to the national debt. Others have not been so restrained about the impact of Trump's overall agenda. "We're going to cut the deficit by $8 trillion over the next 10 years," press secretary Karoline Leavitt offered recently on Fox News. And a recent White House memo offered a slightly lower figure of about $6.7 trillion to $6.9 trillion in deficit reductions over the coming decade. One issue is that White House projections rely on a set of assumptions that are often internally contradictory, such as taking credit for taxes spurring economic growth while simultaneously saying they have no cost. Other parts of the bill would enact temporary tax cuts — and then take credit for lower costs there — while also claiming other permanent cuts are free. That's in addition to an overriding assumption at the White House that, essentially, things break historically right for the US economy and sustained 3% economic growth is in the offing. That's above even what House Republicans are projecting, as lawmakers there have rallied behind a lower (but still very aggressive) assumption of 2.6% growth. Both projections are unlikely, Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said. "Some people are at 2%, some people are at 1.6% ... that is the neighborhood," he said of a series of projections for growth that hover around 1.8%. He added in an interview that even if sustained 3% growth were to happen, "it would have very little to do with this tax bill." Yet the White House has repeatedly dismissed the experts. Trump budget chief Russ Vought recently told reporters that everything "is part of a coherent fiscal agenda" and that the combination of tax cuts, tariffs, additional promised spending cuts, and "reforms we can do ourselves" to programs like Medicaid will lead to good outcomes for the US bottom line. White House projections also fully embrace recent CBO projections of $2.8 trillion in tariff revenues over the coming decade. But that embrace appears to ignore a prediction in the same report that tariffs will "reduce the size of the U.S. economy" and also lead to a potential inflation increase of 0.4 percentage points in 2025 and 2026. York has calculated that even two seemingly minor adjustments — taking the slightly lower but still very aggressive House estimate of 2.6% economic growth and factoring in the economic costs of tariffs — means the bill "is basically a wash or even negative for GDP." "They're picking and choosing," she added. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet And few are expecting tariffs to stay steady in the coming months, not to mention the coming years. Tariff levels are under active negotiation — two fronts this week are duties on goods from China and India — as the CBO report assumed rates remain steady not just during Trump's term, but also years after he is scheduled to leave office. The tariffs are also under a considerable cloud of legal uncertainty, with an appeals court ruling on Tuesday that Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs could stay in force for now while it considers whether they are legal. "Even if they are upheld by the courts, it still seems like the Trump administration is willing to negotiate them down somewhat," York noted, "and then what happens in four years when a new administration comes in?" Ben Werschkul is Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. David Foster is a graphic artist for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
