South Carolina man pleads guilty to illegally selling sperm whale teeth and bones
A South Carolina man pleaded guilty to importing and selling sperm whale teeth and bones, a violation of federal wildlife laws, the Justice Department announced.
Lauren H. DeLoach, 69, of Saint Helena Island, admitted to importing sperm whale parts to South Carolina, including at least 30 shipments from Australia, Latvia, Norway, and Ukraine, between 2021 and 2024, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office, District of South Carolina. Prosecutors said DeLoach instructed suppliers to label items as "plastic" to bypass U.S. customs detection and sold at least 85 items on eBay.
During a search warrant, authorities seized about $20,000 worth of sperm whale parts from DeLoach's residence. DeLoach admitted to selling the teeth and bones from July 2022 to September 2024, prosecutors said.
Sperm whales, protected under the Endangered Species Act and other international agreements, are prized by poachers for their parts and sold in the illegal market. The Lacey Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) are enforced to protect vulnerable species, said Acting U.S. Attorney Brook B. Andrews for the District of South Carolina.
"Illegal wildlife trafficking is a multi-billion-dollar global business that endangers protected animals and fuels organized crime," Andrews said in a statement. "We will continue to enforce the Lacey Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act so vulnerable species like the sperm whale are not killed and sold for parts."
DeLoach faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine on the felony Lacey Act charge and a maximum one-year prison sentence for the misdemeanor MMPA violation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Law Enforcement investigated the case.
'Commitment to bringing justice to those who exploit protected wildlife'
Nathan Williams, DeLoach's lawyer, told USA TODAY that DeLoach "regrets his actions and that they are not representative of the otherwise productive life he has led" and looks "forward to getting this behind him."
U.S. District Judge David C. Norton accepted DeLoach's guilty plea and will sentence the South Carolina man after reviewing a sentencing report prepared by the U.S. Probation Office.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement Assistant Director Doug Ault said that whales are among the most vulnerable to illegal harvest fueled by commercial interests.
"The illicit trade in sperm whale teeth and ear bones contributes to the monetization of at-risk marine mammal populations that America protects through federal laws and international treaties," Ault said. "As part of 'Operation Raw Deal' — a nationwide crackdown on the illegal trade in whale parts — this investigation demonstrates our commitment to bringing justice to those who exploit protected wildlife for profit."
Latest incident involving protected wildlife
DeLoach's case is the latest incident involving protected wildlife to make headlines.
In February 2025, California wildlife officials announced that three people were convicted and fined for the unlawful possession of protected and endangered animals. Their crimes were exposed after two people revealed to plain-clothes wildlife officers that they were smuggling an endangered sea turtle's skull on a flight.
"Wildlife trafficking is the fourth largest organized crime in the world, after drug trafficking, counterfeiting, and human trafficking," according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Contributing: Thao Nguyen, USA TODAY
Contact reporter Krystal Nurse at knurse@USATODAY.com. Follow her on X @KrystalRNurse, and on BlueSky @krystalrnuse.bsky.social.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
6 injured in Colorado attack after man sets people on fire while shouting 'Free Palestine,' FBI says
At least six people were injured on Sunday in what the FBI immediately described as a 'targeted terror attack' after demonstrators gathered in Boulder, Colorado to call for the release of hostages who remain in Gaza. 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman yelled 'Free Palestine' and used a makeshift flamethrower in the attack, according to local authorities. He was taken into custody following the incident. Soliman was also injured and was taken to hospital to be treated. No charges were immediately announced, though officials said they expect to hold him 'fully accountable.' Video from the scene showed a witness shouting 'He's right there. He's throwing Molotov cocktails' as a police officer advanced on the suspect. The attack took place outside a pedestrian mall where demonstrators had gathered to raise visibility for the hostages who remain in Gaza. It comes just over a week after a man was arrested in the fatal shooting of two Israeli embassy staffers and shouted 'Free Palestine' as he was being led away by police. The FBI said they were investigating the attack as an act of terrorism and the Justice Department decried it as a 'needless act of violence.'
CBS News
6 hours ago
- CBS News
Former Trump supporter Pamela Hemphill refuses and returns her Jan. 6 pardon
What to know about Trump's flurry of pardons What to know about Trump's flurry of pardons What to know about Trump's flurry of pardons Amid the wave of pardons and commutations President Trump has doled out to some of his supporters and surrogates, one former MAGA loyalist in Idaho is fighting to return her pardon. Pamela Hemphill is one of the more than 1,500 people whom Mr. Trump pardoned earlier this year for their roles in the U.S. Capitol Insurrection. She has invoked help from her Republican senator to formally refuse and block the pardon Trump issued her on Jan. 20, his first day back in the White House. Though Hemphill was a defendant of the largest criminal prosecution in American history, she is seemingly standing alone now as the only Jan. 6 defendant to refuse the clemency Mr. Trump offered. Speaking with CBS News from her home in Idaho, Hemphill said, "The pardons just contribute to their narrative, which is all lies, propaganda. We were guilty, period." "We all know that they're gaslighting us. They are using January 6 to just continue Trump's narrative that the Justice Department was weaponized," she said. "They were not, When the FBI came to my home, oh my God, they were very professional. They treated me very good." Hemphill pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for her role in the crowd on Jan. 6, 2021. Prosecutors argued Hemphill "was in the front of the crowd that confronted U.S. Capitol Police and other law enforcement officers attempting to keep the rioters behind the metal bike-rack barriers." They alleged Hemphill galvanized others to descend on Washington for the certification of the electoral vote after the 2020 election, according to court filings. "On December 28, 2020, Hemphill posted encouragement to go to Washington, D.C. for January 6, saying 'its a WAR!' On January 1, 2021, she posted a message 'on my way to Washington DC January 6th," the prosecution said. Image from court filings show Pamela Hemphill's social media post about Jan. 6, 2021. Handout Hemphill also pleaded guilty in January 2022 to a count of unlawful parading and was sentenced later that year to a term that included three years of probation. Her case mirrors many other misdemeanor cases from the U.S. Capitol siege, in which members of the crowd were not accused of making physical contact with police or damaging any property — though prosecutors emphasized how each member of the mob contributed to the breakdown of police lines, the injuries and the damage to American democracy. Hemphill told CBS News the pardons for her and fellow members of the crowd were inappropriate and damaging Americans' views of the federal government. "How could you sleep at night taking a pardon when you know you were guilty? You know that everybody there was guilty. I couldn't live with myself. I have to be right with me. And with God," Hemphill said. Former Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer, who was fired by the Trump administration in March after a disagreement over a case, told CBS News that Hemphill's protest is a sharp contrast from the conduct of other Capitol riot defendants who championed their own pardons. "Some Jan. 6 defendants blew up our phones seeking a copy of their pardons. They wanted the copies quickly," Oyer said. "They wanted it framed and signed." Court filings reviewed by CBS News show other Jan. 6 defendants have utilized their pardon certificates to make arguments in court about their cases, restitution payments or other legal matters. In contrast, senate records obtained by CBS News show Hemphill sought assistance from Sen. James Risch to secure a formal acknowledgement from the Department of Justice that she will not accept her pardon. In an April 2 correspondence from the Office of the Pardon Attorney to Sen. Risch, the pardon attorney's office wrote, "Ms. Hemphill's non-acceptance is noted." The letter said the Justice Department would not issue Hemphill a formal certificate to chronicle her pardon. In a statement to CBS News, a spokesperson for Risch said, "The Office of U.S. Senator Jim Risch regularly assists constituents with matters pertaining to federal agencies or programs. Due to privacy concerns, we cannot disclose details about individual cases." Hemphill has sparred on social media and in podcasts with other Jan. 6 defendants over her arguments about what she says is the whitewashing of the Capitol riot. In one segment on a podcast earlier this spring, Hemphill debated Enrique Tarrio, a former Proud Boys leader who was convicted at trial and received the longest prison sentence of any Jan. 6 defendant. Tarrio's sentence was commuted by Trump. Hemphill told CBS News she expects her protest will garner the attention of the president. "Trump will probably say that ungrateful lady, I'm going to make sure she gets back on probation and give her the worst you can give her. I won't be surprised," she said.
Boston Globe
9 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Discrimination cases unravel as Trump scraps core civil rights tenet
The Justice Department now is reviewing its entire docket and has already dismissed or terminated 'many' cases that were 'legally unsupportable' and a product of 'weaponization' under the Biden administration, said Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'We will fully enforce civil rights laws in a way that satisfies the ends of justice, not politicization,' she said in a statement to The Washington Post. Advertisement The review includes cases and reform agreements forged after years-long investigations that the administration says lacked justification. Civil rights experts estimate that dozens of discrimination cases involving banks, landlords, private employers, and school districts could face similar action. 'What we're seeing is an attempt by the Trump administration to really dismantle a lot of the core tools that we use to ensure equality in the country,' said Amalea Smirniotopoulos, senior policy counsel and comanager of the Equal Protection Initiative at the Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit that has long advocated for the civil rights of Black Americans and other minorities. Advertisement At the center of this effort is 'disparate impact analysis,' which holds that neutral policies can have discriminatory outcomes even if there was no intent to discriminate. The legal standard stems from Griggs v. Duke Power, the landmark 1971 Supreme Court decision that became a staple of civil rights litigation. In that case, attorneys relied on statistical evidence to show how standardized testing prevented Black employees in North Carolina from advancing at the energy company. The legal theory has been consistently recognized by the Supreme Court, written into federal regulations and enshrined into employment law by Congress. But President Trump declared it unconstitutional in April, issuing an executive order that kicked off an intense review of civil rights regulations, enforcement actions, and settled cases. Now, government agreements and orders that relied on disparate impact in pursuing sex, race, and disability discrimination cases are being undone. On May 23, for example, the Justice Department terminated an agreement with Patriot Bank, a Tennessee-based lender accused of failing to lend in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods in Memphis, from 2015 to 2020. Prosecutors used statistical evidence to show disparities in the bank's lending practices alongside evidence of intentional discrimination, such as targeting most of its advertising in majority-white neighborhoods. A three-year agreement to reform its lending practices had been in place for a little over a year before Trump's Justice Department moved to end it, noting the bank was in compliance with the reform agreement. Patriot declined to comment. Civil rights advocates worry about the future of similar enforcement. Advertisement Disparate impact has long been anathema to conservatives, who say it can result in quotas and deny equal opportunity to white people. But past Republican administrations opted not to take this issue on, partly because of Supreme Court precedent and partly because it might prove politically unpopular. 'What changed is just political will,' said Kenneth L. Marcus, who headed the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights during both George W. Bush's administration and Trump's first term. 'The second Trump administration is more willing to take on potentially contentious civil rights issues than any Republican administration this century.' Trump issued a slew of executive orders to eradicate diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs - calling them 'illegal and immoral' days after he returned to the White House in January - and ordered the government to close diversity offices and fire staff. His administration has since launched investigations into corporations, law firms and colleges over their diversity initiatives, while going to battle with Harvard University for its refusal to comply with a set of demands to alter its governance, admissions, and hiring practices. When Trump set his sights on disparate impact in April, he called it a 'pernicious movement' that ignores 'individual strengths, effort or achievement.' He ordered federal agencies to review any cases and reform agreements that rely on the theory - and terminate them as they see fit. The actions are long overdue, said Dan Morenoff, executive director at the American Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit law firm that opposes the use of disparate impact and diversity initiatives. He contends that the government's use of disparate impact has been, in many cases, legally dubious, adding that its assumptions are fundamentally flawed. Advertisement 'The people who most appreciate disparate impact appear, usually, to be deeply wed to the idea that any discrepancies are best explained by discrimination,' he said. The Supreme Court most recently upheld the use of disparate impact analysis in a 2015 housing case. But that decision was decided on a 5-4 vote in an opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, now retired. Some conservatives believe the court's current conservative supermajority might give them their wished-for outcome. 'It's clear what the Trump administration is aiming for is to get this question to the Supreme Court in hopes the Supreme Court will take that tool away,' said Smirniotopoulos of the Legal Defense Fund. The rollbacks are already underway. In 2023, the Justice Department alleged that Atlanta-based Ameris Bank avoided providing home loans to Black and Latino home buyers in Jacksonville, Florida, in a practice known as redlining. The bank almost exclusively advertised in majority-White neighborhoods and made little effort to do business in majority Black and Latino neighborhoods, according to its lawsuit. Only 2.7 percent of Ameris's mortgages went to borrowers in Black and Latino communities from 2016 to 2021, the complaint said, while its competitors issued more than three times as many loans during that window. Ameris knew about the disparities but failed to correct them, the government alleged. Though it admitted no wrongdoing, Ameris quickly settled the case, agreeing to a set of measures whose progress would be monitored by the court. Then, on May 19, the Justice Department moved to unwind the settlement, saying that the bank has 'demonstrated a commitment to remediation' while freeing it from its legal obligations to implement the reforms. The bank did not object to the move. Prosecutors did note that Ameris had disbursed the entirety of a $7.5 million loan subsidy fund for borrowers in Black and Latino neighborhoods. Advertisement A judge granted the request a day later. Ameris declined to comment. The government moved to terminate cases involving two banks in Alabama and Tennessee that had agreed to court-monitored reforms tied to allegations of discriminatory lending practices. It also moved to dismiss a case in Kinloch, Mo., against property managers accused of refusing to rent to prospective Black tenants at disproportionate rates. There are at least eight other housing and lending cases across seven states that are similarly candidates for dismissal, according to a review. While the administration blamed the Biden administration for mishandling these cases, it has also dismissed cases going back decades. It did not directly concern disparate impact, but the Justice Department in April dismissed a 1966 consent order with a Louisiana school district concerning its desegregation efforts.
