Federal Grand Jury Indicts Suspect in Killing of Minnesota Lawmaker
The defendant, Vance Boelter, had already been charged by federal prosecutors with many of the same crimes in a criminal complaint. The indictment supersedes those charges, and is an important step in the process of bringing Mr. Boelter to trial.
If convicted of murder in federal court, Mr. Boelter could face the death penalty. Prosecutors have not said whether they would seek that punishment, though they kept that option open on Tuesday by including a notice of special findings in the indictment, said Joseph H. Thompson, the acting U.S. attorney in Minnesota. He said the final decision on whether to seek the death penalty would be made later by Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Mr. Boelter is also charged with murder in state court.
In addition to the deaths of the Hortmans, Mr. Boelter is accused of shooting and wounding State Senator John A. Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, before dawn on the same day last month. Mr. Hoffman, who was hospitalized, moved to a rehabilitation facility last week.
Federal prosecutors said Mr. Boelter was impersonating a police officer on June 14 when he went to the suburban Minneapolis homes of the two lawmakers, both Democrats, and shot them and their spouses. He visited the homes of two more Democratic lawmakers as well, federal prosecutors said, and he had a list of other Democratic politicians in his S.U.V., which resembled a police cruiser.
Mr. Boelter abandoned his vehicle and fled after encountering police officers at the Hortmans' home, officials said. A two-day manhunt that was described as the largest in Minnesota's history. led to his arrest in a rural area near his home in Sibley County.
The attacks in Minnesota came at a time of rising political violence in the United States. Officials in some states have promised to take a closer look at the safety of state legislators, who generally have no special security protection and whose home addresses are often posted on government websites and official documents.
Ms. Hortman, a former speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was remembered by colleagues as a thoughtful lawmaker who was willing to work across party lines. When her party had full control of state government in 2023 and 2024, she helped pass bills that expanded abortion rights, legalized recreational marijuana and required employers to provide medical and family leave.
Mr. Hortman, who worked for an electrical manufacturing company, was recalled by friends as an enthusiastic and supportive political spouse with a sense of humor and an interest in sports.
Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., former Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota were among the officials who attended the Hortmans' funeral in June.
Julie Bosman contributed reporting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
2 minutes ago
- CBS News
Minnesota Capitol security committee holds first meeting since deadly lawmaker shootings
Safety is again front and center at the Minnesota State Capitol on Wednesday morning following the deadly attacks on lawmakers more than two months ago, and last month's incident where a naked man was found inside Senate chambers. Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan is currently leading the meeting as chair of the Advisory Committee on Capitol Security. It's the committee's first meeting since the tragedies on June 14 that left House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband dead, and Sen. John Hoffman and his wife critically injured. Earlier this month, Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher criticized Capitol security for not sending a mass alert to state lawmakers amid the overnight attacks. "There is no excuse for not having or not using a functional mass notification system for our legislators on June 14th, 2025," Fletcher wrote in a statement. "The State Patrol Capitol Security Division has been working on this issue for eight years but failed to implement an effective alert program that could have notified Melissa Hortman and others of the active potential threat against them." A few security changes have already been made at the Capitol complex since the shootings, including fewer public entrances and more security officers. Members of the public were invited to give in-person and written comments at Wednesday's meeting, with hundreds of submissions received. The majority of commenters urge the committee to not change policy that allows guns in the Capitol, with dozens of entries reading, "I am opposed to disarming peaceable Minnesotans with Permits to Carry at the State Capitol Complex." WCCO's Caroline Cummings will have the latest on the meeting on WCCO 4 News at Noon. This story will be updated.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the Trump administration could attack state laws it says stifle US economy
The Trump administration is hunting for state laws that drag down the US economy. But axing statutes it sees as problematic will depend on how it wields the Constitution's powerful Commerce Clause. Last Friday, the Justice Department and the National Economic Council announced a joint initiative to "address" state statutes that "significantly and adversely affect the national economy.' State regulations, policies, causes of action, and practices were also included as targets. The plan is meant to support the White House's deregulation agenda, which President Trump described in a series of separate executive orders issued in January, February, and April. Those orders emphasize the administration's goal of alleviating policies that it views as "unnecessary burdens" on Americans, small businesses, private enterprise, and entrepreneurship. In an unusual twist, the agencies also solicited help from US citizens, asking members of the public to point out economy-slowing state laws and to propose legal theories that could reverse the laws' adverse effects. "They're crowdsourcing their legal theories," said Emily Berman, a constitutional scholar with the University of Houston Law Center. However, the plan stopped short of explaining what theories the administration would rely on to undo suspected harmful state laws. Jeremy Rovinsky, a federal prosecutor who teaches constitutional law at Crestpoint University, said the language used in the DOJ's plan to attack state laws shows that the Trump administration has the Commerce Clause in mind. "It's clear that Trump's lawyers are thinking through it this way," Rovinsky said. "The Supreme Court has allowed the federal government to regulate state power in an almost unlimited way." But the Commerce Clause doesn't guarantee the administration power to alter state law. The provision vests power to regulate commerce in Congress, not in the executive branch. A more straightforward type of challenge, the lawyer said, is one where state law directly conflicts with federal statutes. In those cases, the Justice Department could raise preemption challenges under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Preemption challenges argue that a state rule essentially steps on the federal government's toes, Berman said. The Commerce Clause Absent such a clear-cut conflict, the administration would need more legal leverage to countermand state law. That leverage could come from the Commerce Clause, the constitutional scholar said, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. "Anything that regulates commerce falls within the scope of Congress's authority, which has been interpreted relatively broadly," Berman said. To tap into the federal government's authority over commerce, the administration would need to persuade lawmakers to pass new federal legislation invalidating state law. Ravinsky said he sees the DOJ's announcement as an opening salvo to persuade members of Congress. "I think the people that are in [Trump's] inner legal circle wrote that document the way they did, because they want to give Congress a heads up to have them codify what he's doing with executive actions into actual congressional legislation," Ravinsky said. Jonathan Entin, professor emeritus at Case Western Reserve School of Law, said it's possible, but not certain, that pressure on Congress from either President Trump or others in the executive branch would lead to new, preemptive federal laws. "If the president says this is a big priority, then maybe a fair number of people in both the House and the Senate would go along with it," Entin said. "Now, whether there will be enough votes, that's a separate question," he added. "Congress does not legislate very much." "If Congress wants to move legislation against state laws that they say hurt the economy, they need 60 votes in the Senate," Entin said. "And the chances of getting 60 votes in the Senate for much of anything these days are pretty slim." The Supreme Court has largely upheld Congress' power over interstate commerce in a series of cases evaluating the Commerce Clause stretching back more than 80 years. In 1942, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Wickard v. Filburn that expanded the federal government's regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. The case involved an Ohio farmer who grew more wheat than permitted under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The court rejected the farmer's argument that the federal government could not regulate his excess wheat supply under the act because it was grown for personal, rather than commercial, use. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the court reasoned that while a single farmer's excess crop may not substantially impact interstate commerce, the same actions, if taken in the aggregate by multiple farmers, could indeed influence the national market. Despite the Supreme Court's longstanding support for expansive application of the Commerce Clause, Entin suspects that even new federal legislation could fail to preempt certain state laws. States still retain their police powers, he said, and can exercise those powers as long as doing so doesn't interfere with interstate commerce. "It's not clear to me that Congress can use its commerce power to preempt the state's exercise of their police powers, even if state laws may, in fact, be unwise or even foolish," Entin said. The 'dormant' Commerce Clause Still another, and equally uncertain, path to challenge state laws could involve a judge-created theory known as the "Dormant Commerce Clause," the lawyers said. The concept further expands Congress' power over interstate and foreign commerce by limiting states' authority to regulate commerce even when Congress has not directly legislated on an issue. The theory is intended to prevent states from adopting discriminatory, protectionist laws that benefit local economies to the detriment of the national market. The theory was put to the test and shown to have limits in a recent case decided by the Supreme Court. In 2023, the court loosely upheld a California state law known as Proposition 12, which criminalized California sales of pork meat that came from pigs housed in pens measuring less than 24 square feet — 10 square feet larger than the industry standard. The Iowa Pork Producers Association and 23 states argued that the law discriminated against out-of-state pork producers, imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce. However, Berman said, Dormant Commerce Clause challenges to state rules have historically been brought by private litigants, not the federal government. "It's going to be a private business sector actor saying, 'Our business is being harmed ... we shouldn't have barriers to markets along state lines." Entin agreed that it would be unusual for the federal government to sue states over their regulations. Alternatively, he said, Congress could try to persuade states to change laws through conditional federal spending. The administration may not find support from the high court for pushing Congress' authority over commerce even further, Entin added. Conservatives on the court in recent years have expressed "real skepticism" about whether courts should be in the business of enforcing the Commerce Clause, he said. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump to expand push to whitewash ‘woke' museum exhibits on slavery
President Donald Trump reportedly plans to expand his push to whitewash 'woke' museum exhibits on slavery and American history beyond the Smithsonian. After Trump tweeted that the Smithsonian is too focused on 'how bad slavery was,' the White House said it would eventually seek to use its power over funding to force other museums to toe the line on Trump's views about history. Trump will hold the Smithsonian 'accountable' and 'then go from there,' an unnamed official told NBC News. Trump this week renewed the attack on the Smithsonian that he unleashed this month when he ordered a sweeping review of its exhibits, policies and staffing. He suggested the revered cultural institution, which is an independent organization but receives significant funding from the federal government, is too focused on the evils of slavery. 'The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our country is, how bad slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been,' Trump wrote on his social media site. 'Nothing about success, nothing about brightness, nothing about the future.' Trump compared the push against the Smithsonian to his effort to force colleges and universities to bow to his policy goals including ending diversity programs, cracking down on student protests and curbing foreign students. 'I have instructed my attorneys to go through the museums, and start the exact same process that has been done with colleges and universities where tremendous progress has been made,' Trump added. The White House ordered up a wide-ranging review of the Smithsonian museums and exhibitions ahead of the country's 250th birthday, with a goal of aligning the institution's content with Trump's more-rosy interpretation of American history. In a letter sent Tuesday to Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lonnie Bunch III, the White House laid out in detail the steps it expects the organization to take as part of the announced review. The examination will look at all public-facing content, such as social media, exhibition text and educational materials, to 'assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals,' according to the letter. 'This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,' the letter said. The Smithsonian has said it's reviewing Trump's proposals and vowed to cooperate. It includes 21 museums, 14 education and research centers and a zoo and is considered the world's largest cultural organization of its kind.
