Appeals court blocks removal of transgender troops, but allows restrictions on recruits
The E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Court House, home of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, DC (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A federal appeals court on Monday concluded that the Trump administration’s transgender military ban is likely unconstitutional and “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”
In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision blocking the Department of Defense from removing current servicemembers because of their gender dysphoria.
“At this preliminary stage, I conclude that the Hegseth Policy is both arbitrary and based upon animus, and for those reasons the Policy violates Plaintiff-Appellees’ constitutional right to equal protection of the law,” wrote Judge Robert Wilkins, referring to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The decision only applies to the service members who sued the administration and does not bar the Pentagon from blocking transgender people from joining the military.
According to the court, prospective military members can seek relief after the case has completely moved through the courts, while active service members face a more serious hardship by being expelled from the military.
“For those servicemembers facing expulsion, it is not clear how easily they can be reinstated and made whole. But even if they can be reinstated after being separated, it appears to us to be a much greater hardship to end a military career than to delay the start of one,” Judge Wilkins wrote.
Judge Justin Walker — the sole judge on the panel appointed to the bench by a Republican president — dissented and said members of the military could be deprived of certain rights guaranteed to the civilians.
“Like today’s majority, I cherish those rights, and so I understand the impulse behind the majority’s unprecedented intervention into military affairs. But because the plaintiffs are service members not civilians, and because we are judges not generals, I respectfully dissent,” he wrote.
“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief,” he added.
(MIAMI COUNTY, Ind.) — A Vietnamese immigrant died in government custody last week, according to a notification sent to lawmakers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, marking the latest detainee death during the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.
Tuan Van Bui, a 55-year-old immigrant, died at the Miami Correctional Center in Indiana.
He is the 46th person to die in federal custody during the current Trump administration.
In its notification, ICE said that “onsite staff discovered Bui unresponsive and immediately initiated life-saving measures, including CPR. Staff immediately contacted emergency services personnel, who swiftly responded to the scene and initiated advanced life support interventions.”
The cause of death is under investigation.
ICE officials said that Bui was ordered removed by an immigration judge in 2005 and that he had been arrested “over a dozen times on charges including robbery, theft, assault, criminal conspiracy, reckless endangerment, possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute/manufacture, carrying firearms, resisting arrest, and DUI.”
Court records show Bui filed a habeas petition challenging his detention in February. A district judge responded to the petition the day after Bui died, ordering the government to detail its plans for his removal by April 6. The government filed a status report on Monday, after Bui died, but the contents of that report are not public because the habeas petition is sealed.
According to an ABC News analysis of ICE data and the number of detainee deaths provided to Congress, the first 14 months of the second Trump administration represent the deadliest period for the federal detention system in recent years, with the exception of 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to a spike in deaths.
Gavel on wooden desk with books as background (sean zheng lim/Getty)
(VIRGINIA) — A former assistant principal at a Virginia elementary school is standing trial on criminal charges more than three years after a then-6-year-old student shot his first grade teacher in their classroom.
Ebony Parker has been charged with eight counts of felony child abuse with disregard for life in connection with the January 2023 shooting at Richneck Elementary School in Newport News — one count for each bullet that was unspent in the gun, according to the Newport News Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. She has pleaded not guilty.
The criminal trial comes months after a separate jury in a civil trial found that Parker acted with gross negligence in the shooting and awarded the injured teacher, Abby Zwerner, $10 million in damages.
Prosecutors in the ongoing criminal trial allege that Parker failed to respond after several staffers raised concerns that the student, identified in the trial as JT, had a gun.
“For over an hour, multiple people went to Dr. Parker and told her there was an armed child at an elementary school,” Deputy Commonwealth Attorney Josh Jenkins said during opening statements on Tuesday. “Multiple warnings brought directly to her.”
Jenkins said the evidence will show that Parker did not say to search the child, did not call police and did not remove the child from the classroom.
“She didn’t even get up from her desk,” he said. “Warning after warning after warning — nothing.”
Jenkins said there were 19 children in the classroom at the time of the shooting who are the alleged victims in this case.
“A slight movement of the gun could have hit a child instead of Miss Zwerner,” he said. “All of them, you’ll learn, watched as their teacher clutched her chest and bled before these children, screaming in horror, ran across the hallway to another classroom.”
Jenkins claimed that Parker was the only person in the building at the time who had the authority and knowledge to respond to the crisis.
Defense attorney Curtis Rogers pushed back against that claim, arguing in his opening statement that other school staffers, including Zwerner, could have acted.
“The Commonwealth talks about, a lot, this ongoing crisis and that Dr. Parker was the only person that had knowledge of the crisis and the authority to act. I will submit that that’s not accurate. It’s not true,” Rogers said.
“Think about it — who was the one person that was there from the beginning to the end? And that was the teacher, Miss Zwerner,” he said.
Zwerner, the first witness in the trial, testified that she had told Parker prior to the shooting that JT “seemed to be off” that day and “in a violent mood.” She said another staffer, reading specialist Amy Kovac, alerted her that JT told other students he had brought a gun to school, and that Kovac reported that to the administration.
Zwerner said that in hindsight she could have separated JT from the other students and confirmed that she was responsible for the safety of her students. Though she said her understanding that a crisis or emergency needed to be brought to the attention of the administration, and that she trusted her colleagues.
Kovac testified that she told Parker that two students reported to her that JT had a gun in his bag, and that Parker nodded in acknowledgment when she said she would search the bag at recess. Kovac said she did not find a gun when she searched the bag and then told Parker that she believed the gun was in his jacket pocket.
Pressed by the defense on why she didn’t do more, such as by separating students from JT, Kovac said, “I did not know what his next actions would have been at that moment.”
“A weapon had been reported and no administrator did actions,” she said.
The criminal trial is scheduled to run through at least Thursday.
Zwerner also testified about the shooting during the civil trial, saying she “thought I had died.”
The bullet went through Zwerner’s left hand, which she had lifted, and then into her chest. She was initially hospitalized with life-threatening injuries, police said.
Parker did not testify during the civil trial.
Zwerner and Parker both resigned following the shooting.
The student brought the gun from home, police said. His mother, Deja Taylor, was sentenced to two years in state prison after pleading guilty to child neglect in connection with the shooting. She also pleaded guilty to using marijuana while in possession of a firearm and making a false statement about her drug use during the purchase of the firearm used in the shooting and was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison.
She was released from state custody on May 13 and transitioned to community supervision, according to online Virginia Department of Corrections records.
Marimar Martinez, a Chicago teacher’s assistant who survived being shot five times by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in October 2025, attends a press conference with her lawyers at the law offices of Cheronis & Parente LLC and Gallagher & Kosner Law LLC on February 11, 2026, in Chicago, Illinois, United States. (Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(CHICAGO) — Last October, the Department of Homeland Security claimed that federal agents in Chicago were “forced to deploy their weapons and fire defensive shots at an armed US citizen” after their SUV was “rammed by vehicles and boxed in by 10 cars.”
But analysis of recently released body-camera footage of the shooting of Marimar Martinez and videos verified by nearby businesses and bystanders suggests that those claims were exaggerated — and that federal agents, knowing their actions were being recorded, appeared to coordinate with one another to explain their conduct that day.
Body camera footage and other evidence was released Tuesday after a federal judge last week granted a motion to permit the public release of the materials in the case.
The video shows that in the minute before the shooting, agents were being followed by two, not 10 vehicles. Agents stated they were “boxed in,” but at no time was their vehicle blocked from the front.
At no point in footage from an agent’s body-worn camera or from multiple surveillance cameras is a driver seen ramming the agents’ vehicle; instead, the video shows an agent appearing to steer toward the vehicle driven by Martinez, crashing into her, and then rapidly firing toward her.
Martinez, a U.S. citizen and teacher’s assistant, was shot five times during the incident. She’s now planning to sue DHS and the agent for allegedly making false claims about her following the shooting and labeling her a domestic terrorist.
While prosecutors originally alleged that Martinez “aggressively and erratically” pursued officers that day, a judge dismissed the criminal case against her with prejudice after a reversal by the Department of Justice, which sought to dismiss the case.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesperson said in a statement that the officer who shot Martinez was placed on administrative leave following the incident. The statement did not indicate the length of the administrative leave or when it began.
“CBP is committed to the highest standards of conduct, transparency, and accountability. All significant use-of-force incidents are thoroughly investigated, reviewed, and presented to the National Use of Force Review Board (NUFRB), an independent body comprised of senior CBP officials and representatives from DHS and DOJ, including the DOJ Civil Rights Division,” the statement said.
Below is a timeline of the incident based on the body camera footage and bystander video leading up to and after the shooting.
The lead-up 10:27:02 a.m.
Three federal agents are riding in an SUV in the first moments of video from an agent’s body-worn camera. Later, the video will reveal an Uber placard on the front of their SUV. One agent is seen speaking into the voice chat app on a nearby phone.
At the time, the Trump administration had surged federal resources for immigration enforcement in Chicago as part of “Operation Midway Blitz.”
According to a court filing, the agents were part of a protective detail assisting a nearby operation in Oaklawn. An FBI agent originally attested that the officers were being followed by multiple civilian vehicles.
10:28:17 a.m.
The agent’s body camera begins recording audio.
“Camera’s on,” the agent says.
The agent readies an assault rifle. With his finger on the trigger, one of the agents can be heard saying what sounds like either “do something, b—-,” or “hit something, b—-.”
10:28:35 a.m.
Another agent is seen pointing his handgun toward the right of the SUV.
A nearby driver repeatedly honks their horn, prompting one of the officers to remark, “Honk all you want.”
The agents’ vehicle is captured on a security camera on Kedzie Avenue. The SUV is flanked by Martinez, in a gray Nissan Rogue, to the agents’ left.
To their right is a GMC SUV, adorned with a Mexican flag on its hood, driven by Anthony Ruiz. Ahead of them are two cars: a sedan and a red pickup truck.
10:28:47 a.m.
Seconds later, the agent with the active body-worn camera says, “Alright, it’s time to get aggressive, get the f—- out. Because they’re trying to box us in.”
“If she hits us, it’s … ,” another agent can be heard saying.
10:28:57 a.m.
Charles Exum, the driver, appears to be the agent who says, “We’re going to make contact, we’re boxed in … we have got to get [inaudible] out of here. “
“We are boxed in,” the agent with the active body-worn camera repeats.
10:28:58 a.m.
The three vehicles briefly enter the frame of a security camera looking over a gas station parking lot.
Martinez, in the Nissan Rogue, is parallel with the agents to their left. Ruiz is behind them and to their right.
The pickup truck and the sedan, previously observed ahead of the agents’ vehicle, are also observed traveling several car lengths ahead of the agents.
10:29:01 a.m.
Exum appears to turn the car’s wheel to the left. A loud crash is heard, and the agents visibly react.
By this time, the two cars ahead of the agents have driven into the path of another security camera. The cars do not stop and drive out of view.
The shooting 10:29:04 a.m.
The agents’ vehicle comes to a stop. Their vehicle and Ruiz’s are seen stopped at the rightmost edge of the gas station security footage. The view of Martinez’s vehicle is blocked, and we do not see the agents’ vehicle make contact with hers.
Exum is seen holding a handgun in his right hand.
10:29:06 a.m.
“Out of the car,” the driver says, as he exits the car with his handgun drawn.
“Be advised, we’ve been struck, we’ve been struck,” the agent with the body-worn camera says.
A second later, five gunshots can be heard in rapid succession.
The agents’ SUV enters the field of view of another security camera. A drawing of the scene — made by one of the agents during their interview with the FBI, according to Martinez’s lawyers — indicated three vehicles were ahead of the agents’ SUV, but the footage shows that at the moment of the shooting, the agents’ vehicle has an unobstructed path forward.
10:29:09 a.m.
Martinez’s vehicle enters the frame of the security camera. She drives north, away from the scene.
10:29:11 a.m.
The agent with the body-worn camera points his rifle toward Ruiz’s vehicle, as it reverses and crashes into a parked car before turning to the left to drive away. Ruiz is later arrested at a gas station a half block away.
“Don’t you f—— move,” the officer says.
10:29:18 a.m.
As the agent turns around, his body camera shows that the SUV is not being blocked in front of it.
The aftermath 10:32:49 a.m.
Exum’s body-worn camera turns on about three minutes after firing his weapon.
10:39:19 a.m.
Exum tells a responding officer that he fired “five to seven shots” at Martinez.
“I don’t know if I hit her or not,” he says. “I [was] angled at the driver, I got five to seven rounds off at her.”
“It was a woman shooting?” the officer asked.
“No, I was shooting,” Exum said.
10:39:38 a.m.
Exum tells a responding officer that he “did the shooting” after Martinez hit his SUV.
“She already hit my vehicle, we got out to defend, she came forward, and that’s when I opened up on her,” he said. “We did not get shot at; we did the shooting.”
10:45:04 a.m.
As more officers arrive at the scene, Exum and the other agents begin to recount the incident and to ask whether his camera was on.
“We were getting out to defend because they already tried to box us in,” he said. “She was moving forward into me.”
“Camera on or no?” an officer said.
“No, I didn’t have it because we were [inaudible],” he said.
“That’s good, as long as you can justify it, bro,” the officer responds.
10:48:14 a.m.
As Exum prepares to light a cigarette, another officer acknowledges that their conversation is being recorded and advises him to “keep everything out.”
“So she hit you guys … You got boxed in?” an officer asked.
“We [were] getting boxed in, and I had to push left. She came in, she pulled over, stopped. I got out so we could defend,” Exum said.
“Hey, hey, just real quick though, since we’re recording, keep it [inaudible],” another officer says. “Keep everything out, you’re good man.”
10:50:30 a.m.
Another officer tells Exum to “keep [his] mouth shut” about the incident.
“Just so you know, you don’t give statements to anybody,” the officer says. “Absolutely no statements at all … You keep your mouth shut.”
