Luigi Mangione latest: Judge could rule if death penalty stays on the table
Luigi Mangione appears for a suppression of evidence hearing in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan Criminal Court, December 18, 2025 in New York City. (Curtis Means-Pool/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The judge overseeing Luigi Mangione’s federal case may decide on Friday if the death penalty will remain a sentencing option if he’s convicted.
Mangione, who is accused of stalking and killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Midtown Manhattan in December 2024, will return to the federal courtroom on Friday. He has pleaded not guilty to state and federal charges.
The defense argued that stalking “fails to qualify as a crime of violence” and therefore cannot be the predicate to make Mangione eligible for the death penalty if he is convicted of the federal charges. The defense also argued that the decision to seek the death penalty was political and circumvented the federal government’s protocols.
Judge Margaret Garnett has said Mangione would stand trial for the federal case in January 2027 if capital punishment remains on the table, and that the federal trial would begin in October if the death penalty is taken off the table. Either way, she set jury selection for Sept. 8.
Federal prosecutors contend the Altoona Police Department’s search followed departmental procedures. Mangione’s lawyers have argued the backpack search was illegal and police should not have had immediate access to the items inside, including the alleged murder weapon, a notebook and writings.
In making their case for a July 1 state trial, the Manhattan district attorney’s office said the state has a “deep interest” in upholding the right to life, maintaining public order and delivering justice for Thompson’s family.
Demonstrators against the ongoing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deployment march during a protest in Minneapolis, Minnesota, US, on Sunday, Jan. 25, 2026. (Jaida Grey Eagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(MINNEAPOLIS) — A federal judge heard arguments Monday on the state of Minnesota’s request for a temporary restraining order to halt the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operation in the state.
The hearing came two days after the death of 37-year-old Alex Pretti in what was the second shooting of a U.S. citizen this month by federal immigration enforcement agents in Minneapolis.
An attorney representing the state said in Monday’s hearing that the enforcement action, dubbed “Operation Metro Surge,” is the nation’s single largest escalation of immigration enforcement, despite Minnesota not having the largest number of non-citizens with criminal convictions.
“Yet the federal government has sent an unprecedented force of thousands of masked agents armed with assault rifles to spread through our region in roving patrols that are racially profiling and inflicting violence on people,” argued state attorney Lindsey Middlecamp.
Brian Carter, another state attorney, argued that there’s a lack of precedent because “the conduct [from the federal government] is so outrageously unlawful we’ve never seen it before.”
“In the 250 years of this nation’s history, we have never seen a federal government attack states based on personal animosity,” Carter argued.
“Well, we’ve seen the federal government take very robust responses to states that aren’t yielding to federal authority,” U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez interrupted.
“Absolutely, but that’s based on the rule of law,” Carter responded.
When Judge Menendez asked what exactly the state wants her to do, Carter said, “End Operation Metro Surge.”
“The whole Operation Metro Surge is an illegal means to an illegal end, so just ending the whole thing is the appropriate remedy there,” Carter said.
“You understand the federal government has a lot of power in this area, so I’m trying to figure out what principle you’re asking me to apply that will sort out legal federal law enforcement from this 10th Amendment argument,” Judge Menendez said.
An attorney representing the federal government called the state’s request to end Operation Metro Surge “staggering.”
“The effect of their requested relief would be essentially removing the officers whom the president has concluded should be there to enforce federal immigration law,” said attorney Brantley Mayers. “It’s pretty staggering.”
Mayers argued that the requested relief should be subject to “a heightened standard.”
“They’re challenging one law enforcement initiative,” replied Judge Menendez. “They’re not challenging the enforcement of immigration law writ large.”
Mayers said that if the judge issues an order to end Operation Metro Surge, it “would be very difficult to implement.”
“If it’s difficult to implement, does that mean I can do nothing?” Judge Menendez asked.
Mayers responded by saying such an order would create a “very difficult separation of powers problem.”
The judge also said she is “grappling” with the alleged illegalities identified by the state, pointing to other lawsuits filed in Minnesota.
“Isn’t the answer to the flood of illegality to fight each illegal act?” Judge Menendez asked, noting that the conduct of federal agents is already the subject of separate litigation.
Menendez also questioned how she should draw the line between legitimate federal pressure and illegal coercion.
“How do I decide when a law enforcement response crosses the line from a legitimate response to one that violates the 10th Amendment?” she asked.
Carter argued that there are “4,000 masked, armed federal agents engaged in systemic, pervasive, and illegal violent behavior” that is “so far out on the other side of the line.”
“We’ve got retaliation, we’ve got racial profiling, we’ve got warrantless entries into homes,” Carter said.
Middlecamp said that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s letter to Gov. Tim Walz Saturday in which she sought information about the state’s voter rolls and records on Medicaid and Food and Nutrition Service programs as a condition for ICE agents pulling back on enforcement, “can only be described as a ransom note.”
“President Trump himself took to social media last night to reaffirm those very purposes. Their message is clear,” Middlecamp said. “Minnesota can either change its laws and policies or suffer an invasion of masked armed forces. This is precisely the type of coercion and commandeering that violates the 10th Amendment.”
Middlecamp argued there has been “excessive force and unsupported detentions and arrests of legal observers” and said that DHS agents have been collecting photos and license plates of observers so they can confront them.
“Even though they are not charged with a crime or reasonably suspected of a crime, there has been indiscriminate use of chemical irritants,” she said.
The attorney argued that Operation Metro Surge is having “clear impacts on the sovereign interest to create and protect public safety, public health, and public education.”
Sara Lathrop, an attorney for the city of Minneapolis, said the weekend’s shooting “demonstrated in a terrifying way that the current situation is absolutely untenable.”
“The relief we need needs to be ordered now to take down the temperature,” Lathrop said.
In response, Judge Menendez said that “not all crises have a fix from a district court injunction.”
Carter, the state attorney, wrapped up arguments by saying the state came to the court to “protect its sovereignty.”
“The state of Minnesota comes here today to protect its sovereignty, to stop the harm to its sovereign rights under the Constitution that sets states up as independent sovereigns,” Carter said. “If we can’t come to the court and vindicate those rights, where else does a state go?”
Judge Menendez did not issue an order immediately following the hearing.
“I do not intend in any way for the depth of my analysis or whatever time I take to write to be seen as a belief that this is unimportant,” she said. “It’s because it’s extremely important that I’m doing everything I can to get it right,” the judge said.
Nurses hold signs during a strike over contract negotiations on January 11, 2022. (Fatih Aktas/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The largest nurses’ strike in New York City history could begin on Monday morning if a tentative settlement isn’t reached between the nurses’ union and hospitals.
Nearly 16,000 nurses are threatening to walk off their jobs on Monday morning, according to the New York State Nursing Association (NYSNA), the union representing the nurses.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul declared a state of emergency Friday in anticipation of a possible strike and appealed to the hospitals and nurses’ union to hammer out a last-minute deal, saying that a strike “could jeopardize the lives of thousands of New Yorkers and patients.”
“I’m strongly encouraging everyone to stay at the table, both sides, management and the nurses, until this is resolved,” Hochul said.
Five privately-run major hospitals in New York City would be affected by a strike. The hospitals, according to the union, are the wealthiest in the city and include Mount Sinai Hospital, Mount Sinai Morningside, Mount Sinai West, Montefiore Einstein, and New York-Presbyterian.
The hospitals are prepared to continue offering care despite any pending work interruptions, according to officials, who said patients should not avoid or delay seeking help for any medical emergencies.
The NYSNA said during an video conference update Sunday morning that there has been no movement in the labor talks with the five hospitals, affecting more than 15,000 nurses.
The NYSNA is calling for an agreement that includes pay hikes, safe staffing levels, full health care coverage and pensions, and workplace protections against violence.
A source familiar with the labor negotiations told ABC News that the nurses are expected walk off their jobs beginning at 6 a.m. Eastern time on Monday.
The nurses’ contract, reached in 2023 after a three-day strike, expired on Dec. 31.
“We continue to bargain in good faith in the hopes of reaching an agreement that is fair, reasonable, and responsible,” a spokesperson for the Mount Sinai Healthcare system said in a statement on Saturday. “While we know a strike can be disruptive, we are prepared for a strike that could last an indefinite amount of time and have taken every step to best support our patients and employees in the event NYSNA forces our nurses to walk away from the bedside for the second time in three years.”
The impasse between the NYSNA and management of the private New York City hospitals continued even as the union announced tentative settlements last week that diverted strikes at four so-called safety-net hospitals in the New York City area.
Nurses at three major Northwell Health hospitals on New York’s Long Island reached a tentative contract agreement on Thursday and called off a strike, according to the NYSNA. Nurses at Brooklyn Hospital Center and Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, and those who work for the BronxCare Health System, also rescinded strike notices when they reached a tentative contract, the NYSNA said.
“That leaves New York City’s wealthiest hospitals as the outliers who have refused to settle fair contracts that protect patients and nurses,” NYSNA President Nancy Hagans said in a video statement on Saturday.
Hagans added, “Instead of guaranteeing health care for nurses, these wealthy hospitals are pushing to cut health care benefits for nurses who put their own health on the line to care for New Yorkers during this historic flu surge, the COVID-19 pandemic and everyday injuries and hospital violence.”
Hagan pointed to a police-involved shooting last week at a Brooklyn hospital as the latest example of the violence hospital workers face.
On Thursday, a 62-year-old former NYPD officer, allegedly wielding a sharp object, was fatally shot by New York City police officers at New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital. The man, according to police, was shot after he allegedly barricaded himself in a room with an adult patient and a hospital security worker and threatened to hurt himself and others.
US President Donald Trump attends the signing ceremony of the Peace Charter for Gaza as part of the 56th World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 22, 2026. (Photo by Harun Ozalp/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The families of two Trinidadian nationals killed in an October airstrike are suing the U.S. government for wrongful death and extrajudicial killings.
In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday, attorneys representing the families said the Oct. 14 attack was “part of an unprecedented and manifestly unlawful U.S. military campaign of lethal strikes against small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean.”
The two men — Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo — had been fishing off the Venezuelan coast and were returning to their homes in Trinidad and Tobago when the strike occurred, according to the lawsuit.
“These premeditated and intentional killings lack any plausible legal justification,” attorneys for the families wrote. “Thus, they were simply murders, ordered by individuals at the highest levels of government and obeyed by military officers in the chain of command.”
President Donald Trump said in October that “six male narcoterrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike” and the vessel was affiliated with an unnamed “designated terrorist organization conducting narcotrafficking.”
The lawsuit argues that because the strike did not occur within an active armed conflict, the laws of war do not apply.
“Instead, the rules under international human rights law and federal law regulate the government’s strikes,” the lawsuit states “And those rules protect the right to life and prohibit extrajudicial killings.”
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Death on the High Seas Act and the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreign citizens to sue in U.S. courts over human rights violations committed abroad.
One of the victims, according to the lawsuit, 26-year-old Joseph, lived in Trinidad with his wife and three children. He frequently traveled between Trinidad and Venezuela for fishing and farm work.
According to the filing, he was fearful of the trip due to reports of U.S. military strikes in the region.
“But he was determined to return to his wife and their children as soon as possible,” the lawsuit states.
On Oct. 14, Joseph’s wife heard reports of a boat strike just off the Venezuelan coast. Because no one has heard from him since Oct. 12, the family concluded that Joseph “was a passenger on board the boat that the United States destroyed on or about October 14.”
The second victim, 41-year-old Samaroo, was a Trinidadian construction worker and fisherman, the lawsuit says. He had been working on the same farm as Joseph and planned to return home to care for his mother who was sick, according to the complaint.
“Mr. Joseph and Mr. Samaroo were two of at least 125 victims of the United States’ 36 lethal military strikes against people on boats since September 2,” the attorneys said.
The families are seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
The Pentagon told ABC News on Tuesday, “As a matter of policy, the Department does not comment on pending litigation.”
As of Jan. 27, 2026, there have been 36 total kinetic strikes with 37 go-fast boats destroyed, including 1 semi-submersible and 1 low-profile vessel; with 116 narco-terrorist deaths and 10 active searches suspended, according to U.S. Southern Command.
