US attorney testifies that DOJ didn’t direct him to seek criminal charges against Abrego Garcia
Kilmar Abrego Garcia (R) and his wife Jennifer Vasquez Sura (L) attend a prayer vigil before he enters a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office on August 25, 2025 in Baltimore, Maryland. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, testifying Thursday at a hearing on whether the government is being vindictive in pursuing a human smuggling case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, said that no one from the White House or the Department of Justice made the decision to seek an indictment against the Salvadoran native.
The hearing comes after the federal judge overseeing the case, Waverly Crenshaw Jr., canceled the trial in the case in December and wrote in a court order that there was enough evidence to hold a hearing on the question of vindictive prosecution after the Trump administration brought Abrego Garcia back from detention in El Salvador to face charges stemming from a 2022 traffic stop.
“Who decided to seek an indictment against Abrego Garcia” a government lawyer asked Acting U.S. Attorney Robert McGuire during Thursday’s hearing.
“I did,” McGuire testified.
McGuire said that after reviewing the body cam footage of the 2022 traffic stop, “there were things” that were similar to other human smuggling cases, including the number of individuals in the car, the lack of luggage in the vehicle, and the fact that Abrego Garcia — who was the driver — “seemed to speak on behalf of everyone else.” Abrego Garcia was not charged at that time.
“This really looked like a human smuggling case to me,” McGuire testified.
When asked about his communications with DOJ leadership, McGuire said it was normal for him to be in contact with top officials because of the high-profile immigration case involving Abrego Garcia.
In response to questions about an email from a top DOJ official to McGuire stating that the case was a “top priority,” McGuire said DOJ leadership “always” wanted to stay updated on high-profile cases.
Earlier in Thursday’s hearing, an investigator with the Department of Homeland Security said that she felt no pressure to bring charges.
Saoud stated that as she began her preliminary investigation and obtained the video of the traffic stop in the spring, “the case started getting stronger.”
When asked by a DOJ attorney whether she felt pressured by the government to move the case toward prosecution, Saoud said no.
“We’re not swayed by political attention or political posturing,” Saoud testified.
The government is currently blocked from deporting Abrego Garcia, who was released from immigration detention in December. In a separate case last week, a federal judge ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot re-detain him because his 90-day detention period had expired and the government lacked a viable plan for his deportation.
The Salvadoran native, who had been living in Maryland with his wife and children, was deported last March to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison — despite a 2019 court order barring his deportation to that country due to fear of persecution. The Trump administration claimed he was a member of the criminal gang MS-13, which he and his attorneys deny.
He was brought back to the U.S. in June to face the human smuggling charges, to which he pleaded not guilty.
After being released into the custody of his brother in Maryland pending trial, he was again detained by immigration authorities before being released in December.
Luigi Mangione (R) appears for a suppression of evidence hearing in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan Criminal Court on December 01, 2025 in New York City. (Steven Hirsch-Pool/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — A year to the day after Luigi Mangione allegedly stalked and gunned down United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a Manhattan sidewalk, the 27-year-old alleged killer was identified in court by one of the police officers who first encountered him in Altoona, Pennsylvania, following the shooting.
“He’s the gentleman right there sitting between the female and the male. Looks like he’s wearing a suit,” patrolman Tyler Frye said, pointing with his left hand.
Mangione’s lawyers are attempting to convince the judge overseeing his case to prohibit prosecutors from using critical evidence, including the alleged murder weapon and Mangione’s journal. They argue the evidence was unlawfully seized from his backpack without a warrant during his arrest.
Mangione — in court for the third day of a pretrial hearing in his state murder case — flipped a pen in his right hand and then began writing on a white lined legal pad, largely ignoring body camera footage of his arrest that played on screens around the courtroom.
Frye, 26, was still a probationary officer, on the job less than a year, when he responded to a McDonalds on E. Plank Road after the dispatcher told them a manager had called 911 to report someone who looked like the person wanted in the shooting.
On the body camera footage played in court, someone is heard directing the officers, “He’s back there.”
Frye is seen in the footage standing a few feet from Mangione while Mangione nibbled a hash brown as the officers stalled for time by engaging in small talk about the Steak McMuffin.
Another officer is heard asking Mangione, “Do you know what all this nonsense is about?” Mangione is heard replying, “We’re going to find out I guess.”
Officers subsequently informed Mangione he was under “official police investigation” and asked him his real name. Frye, on the video, is seen writing the name “Luigi Mangione” in a small notebook and providing his date of birth. At that point, Mangione is read is Miranda rights.
Defense attorneys are trying to exclude statements Mangione made and the contents of his backpack, including a 3D-printed gun and a red notebook.
“Where were you standing in relation to the backpack?” prosecutor Joel Seidemann asked. “Right near it,” Frye replied.
“Were you aware of that backpack?” Seidemann asked. “I was,” Frye said.
“When did you become aware of it?” asked Seidemann.
“About the time I walked in,” Frye replied.
The hearing has the potential to sideline what prosecutors say is some of the strongest evidence of Mangione’s guilt, and has provided the most detailed preview to date of their case against the alleged killer.
(NEW YORK) — A doctor who admitted to distributing ketamine to Matthew Perry weeks before he died is set to be sentenced on Wednesday — the first among the five people convicted in connection with the “Friends” actor’s 2023 overdose death.
Salvador Plasencia pleaded guilty in July to four counts of distribution of ketamine. He is one of two doctors convicted of providing Perry with ketamine before the actor died in October 2023 at the age of 54. The actor was discovered unresponsive in a jacuzzi at his Los Angeles home, police said. An autopsy report revealed he died from the acute effects of ketamine.
Plasencia, an operator of an urgent care clinic in Malibu, had been set to go on trial in August in the case prior to reaching a plea agreement. He faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison for each count, prosecutors said.
His sentencing is scheduled for 11 a.m. Wednesday local time in Los Angeles federal court.
The government recommended a sentence of 36 months in prison, arguing in a filing ahead of the sentencing that Plasencia “sought to exploit Perry’s medical vulnerability for profit.”
“Indeed, the day defendant met Perry he made his profit motive known, telling a co-conspirator: ‘I wonder how much this moron will pay’ and ‘let’s find out,'” prosecutors stated.
Plasencia’s attorneys asked for a sentence of one day credit for time served and three years of supervised release in a filing ahead of sentencing, arguing that prison time is unnecessary given “the punishment Mr. Plasencia has already experienced, and will continue to experience for many years to come.”
“He has already lost his medical license, his clinic, and his career,” they wrote. “He has also been viciously attacked in the media and threatened by strangers to the point where his family has moved out of state for their safety.”
His attorneys stated that Plasencia recklessly treated Perry “without adequate knowledge of ketamine therapy and without a full understanding of his patient’s addiction,” and that it was “the biggest mistake of his life.”
They said he accepts the consequences of his actions and is working to find ways to help people without a medical license and one day hopes to start a nonprofit focused on food insecurity.
His attorneys also tried to differentiate Plasencia from the four other defendants in the case who have also all pleaded guilty — two dealers who provided the fatal dose of ketamine to Perry, the actor’s personal assistant who administered it and another doctor who ran a ketamine clinic.
Plasencia, his attorneys said, treated Perry for “a discrete thirteen-day period in the physician-patient context for depression.”
“Despite the serious treatment mistakes he made, Mr. Plasencia was not treating M.P. at the time of his death and he did not provide him with the ketamine which resulted in his overdose,” they continued.
According to Plasencia’s plea agreement, he distributed 20 vials of ketamine, ketamine lozenges and syringes to Perry and the actor’s live-in assistant, Kenneth Iwamasa, between Sept. 30, 2023, and Oct. 12, 2023.
Plasencia “admits that his conduct fell below the proper standard of medical care and that transfers of ketamine vials to Defendant Iwamasa and Victim M.P. were not for a legitimate medical purpose,” his plea agreement stated.
Iwamasa, who admitted in court documents to administering the ketamine on the day that Perry died, pleaded guilty in August 2024 to one count of conspiracy to distribute ketamine causing death, the DOJ said.
According to Iwamasa’s plea agreement, Perry asked Iwamasa to help him procure ketamine in September 2023 and provided his assistant with “money, or promised to reimburse him, and directed him to find sources from whom to acquire the drugs.”
One of Plasencia’s patients introduced him to Perry on Sept. 30, 2023, with the unidentified patient referring to the actor as a “‘high profile person’ who was seeking ketamine and was willing to pay ‘cash and lots of thousands’ for ketamine treatment,'” according to Plasencia’s plea agreement.
Plasencia contacted his mentor, Mark Chavez, who had previously operated a ketamine clinic, to discuss Perry’s request for ketamine and purchased vials of liquid ketamine, ketamine lozenges and other items from him, according to the agreement.
Chavez pleaded guilty in October 2024 to distributing ketamine to Perry.
In discussing how much to charge Perry, Plasencia said in text messages to Chavez, “I wonder how much this moron will pay” and “Lets [sic] find out,” the Department of Justice said.
Plasencia administered ketamine to Perry at the actor’s home on several occasions, and left vials and lozenges with Iwamasa to administer, according to the plea agreement. In one instance, he was paid $12,000 for such a visit, according to the agreement.
One such instance occurred outside of the home, when Plasencia administered ketamine to Perry in a parking lot near an aquarium in Long Beach, according to the plea agreement. Upon learning about that, Chavez “reprimanded” the other doctor “for ‘dosing people’ in cars, and in a public place where children are present,” Chavez’s plea agreement stated.
Plasencia returned to Perry’s home on Oct. 12, 2023, to administer ketamine, during which the actor’s blood pressure spiked, causing him to “freeze up,” according to Plasencia’s plea agreement.
“Notwithstanding Victim M.P.’s reaction, defendant left additional vials of ketamine with Defendant Iwamasa, knowing that Defendant Iwamasa would inject the ketamine into Victim M.P.,” the agreement stated.
After receiving 10 more vials of ketamine through a licensed pharmaceutical company using his DEA license, Plasencia texted Iwamasa on Oct. 27, 2023, according to the plea agreement: “I know you mentioned taking a break. I have been stocking up on the meanwhile. I am not sure when you guys plan to resume but in case its when im out of town this weekend I have left supplies with a nurse of mine …I can always let her know the plan.”
Perry died the following day after overdosing on ketamine, which Plasencia had not provided, according to the plea agreement.
Plasencia “sold vial after vial of ketamine to Mr. Perry, knowing that Perry’s personal assistant was administering the ketamine without proper oversight or medical training,” the government’s sentencing file stated. “Even after defendant saw Mr. Perry suffer an adverse reaction to a ketamine shot, he still offered to sell Perry more. While the ketamine that killed Mr. Perry on October 28 was not provided by defendant, defendant’s egregious breaches of trust and abandonment of his oath to ‘do no harm’ undoubtedly contributed to the harm that Mr. Perry suffered.”
Following their convictions, both Plasencia and Chavez gave up their medical licenses.
Chavez is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 17 and faces up to 10 years in prison.
Iwamasa is scheduled to be sentenced on Jan. 14, 2026, and faces up to 15 years in prison.
Two other defendants in the case — Erik Fleming and Jasveen Sangha — admitted to distributing the ketamine that killed Perry.
Prosecutors said Sangha worked with Fleming to distribute ketamine to Perry, and that in October 2023, they sold the actor 51 vials of ketamine, which were provided to Iwamasa.
Fleming pleaded guilty in August 2024 to one count of conspiracy to distribute ketamine and one count of distribution of ketamine resulting in death. He is scheduled to be sentenced on Jan. 7, 2026, and faces up to 25 years in prison.
Sangha, allegedly known as “The Ketamine Queen,” pleaded guilty in September to one count of maintaining a drug-involved premises, three counts of distribution of ketamine, and one count of distribution of ketamine resulting in death or serious bodily injury. She is scheduled to be sentenced on Feb. 25, 2026, and faces a maximum sentence of 65 years in prison.
(NEW YORK) — When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Trump administration’s petitions seeking to resurrect Executive Order 14160 — the president’s sweeping attempt to gut the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship — it effectively placed one of the Constitution’s most settled commitments on the docket.
The administration frames the dispute as a long-overdue “correction” to an overly generous citizenship regime, but the legal reality is far clearer: the executive order is an impossible fit with the text, history, and precedent surrounding the Citizenship Clause.
The path to revising that clause is laid out plainly in the document itself — not through executive decree, but through the arduous process of amending the Constitution. Those seeking to restrict birthright citizenship are free to attempt that route. What they cannot do is act as though a presidential signature can silently rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment.
As far back as Justice Samuel Chase’s statement during a 1798 oral argument, it has been settled that “the President has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.”
The constitutional text and its historical foundations The core constitutional question is straightforward: does the Fourteenth Amendment mandate birthright citizenship for all persons born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status? Since ratification in 1868, the answer has been yes. The Citizenship Clause provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The text is simple, unconditional, and deliberately broad. For more than a century, the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean exactly what it says: if you are born in the U.S. and subject to U.S. law, you are a citizen.
The principles underlying that guarantee emerged long before Reconstruction. The doctrine of “jus soli” — citizenship based on birthplace — was deeply rooted in English common law and adopted by the original U.S. states. But early America also struggled with exclusions, most notoriously the Dred Scott decision, which in 1857 held that Black Americans could never be citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified 11 years later, was drafted to repudiate that decision and to prevent the creation of a hereditary class of noncitizens within the United States.
Congress later affirmed this constitutional commitment, passing statutes in 1940 and again in 1952 that aligned fully with the Amendment’s broad guarantee. For 150 years, administrations of both parties have understood birthright citizenship as a constitutional mandate, not an executive policy choice.
Wong Kim Ark and the settled rule of jus soli The Trump administration’s legal theory hinges on the claim that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” excludes the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders. But that argument has been rejected for more than a century. In 1898, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark held that the Fourteenth Amendment codified the long-standing common-law rule of jus soli. The only exceptions recognized at the time, and today, involve individuals genuinely outside U.S. legal authority, such as foreign diplomats and children born on foreign warships.
Immigration status has never been among those exceptions. That is because undocumented immigrants, like all other noncitizens living in the United States, are fully subject to U.S. law. They pay taxes, work, attend school, and remain subject to arrest, prosecution and removal. The government’s ability to enforce immigration law against them is itself proof that they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
As professor Gerald Neuman, an immigration and nationality law expert at Harvard Law, has observed, the administration’s interpretation of birthright citizenship is not merely mistaken but “either a crazy theory or a dishonest interpretation of the Constitution.” The executive order ignores every relevant interpretive source — text, precedent and longstanding practice — and replaces them with a theory the Supreme Court foreclosed over a century ago.
The executive order’s constitutional and structural defects Executive Order 14160 not only contradicts well-settled Fourteenth Amendment doctrine, it also appears to violate basic separation of powers principles. Citizenship rules are fixed in the Constitution and may be altered only through the amendment process. No president may redefine constitutional citizenship by unilateral directive. Yet that is precisely what Executive Order 14160 attempts to do, by conditioning birthright citizenship on the immigration status of a child’s parents.
While the administration claims the order would apply only prospectively, the constitutional problem is the same: the president lacks authority to alter constitutional meaning, even for future cases. The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to settle the rules of national membership beyond the reach of ordinary politics. Allowing the president to unilaterally revise those rules would collapse the distinction between constitutional law and executive preference.
Federal courts recognized these defects immediately. Within days of the order’s issuance, a district court temporarily blocked its implementation. The Supreme Court’s review thus raises not only the question of who qualifies as a citizen, but also whether constitutional guarantees can be rewritten by a single stroke of the executive’s pen.
James Sample is an ABC News legal contributor and a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University. The views expressed in this story do not necessarily reflect those of ABC News or The Walt Disney Company.
