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.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to the press after testifying in a closed-door deposition with the House Oversight Committee at the Chappaqua Performing Arts Center on February 26, 2026 in Chappaqua, New York. (Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Videos of the closed-door depositions of ex-President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were released on Monday by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The Republican-led committee questioned each of the Clintons individually last week in their hometown of Chappaqua, New York, as part of an inquiry into the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and his convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell.
The deposition of Bill Clinton on Friday marked the first time a former president was compelled to testify before a congressional committee.
After being sworn in for his appearance, the former president acknowledged that the Oversight Committee’s desire to question him was justified while also distancing himself from Epstein.
“Through my brief acquaintance with Jeffrey Epstein, though it ended years before his crimes came to light, and though I never witnessed during our limited interactions any indication of what was going on, I’m here to offer what little I know so I can do my part to prevent something like this from happening again,” Bill Clinton said.
“I think you should have called me. I did take those plane trips with him and you have a right to ask those questions,” he added.
He also criticized the Oversight Committee for subpoenaing and questioning Hillary Clinton, arguing she had nothing to do with Epstein.
“I have to just say one personal thing. Since Hillary came in yesterday, she had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. Nothing,” he said.
During her opening statement Thursday, Hillary Clinton argued that the committee was attempting to protect “one political party and one public official rather than to seek truth and justice for the victims.”
“You have made little effort to call the people who show up most prominently in the Epstein files. And when you did, not a single Republican member showed up for Les Wexner’s deposition,” she said of the former Epstein associate. “This institutional failure is designed to protect one political party and one public official rather than to seek truth and justice for the victims and survivors as well as inform the public who want to get to the bottom of this matter. ”
President Donald Trump has denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein.
“I don’t know how many times I had to say I did not know Jeffrey Epstein. I never went to his island. I never went to his homes, I never went to his offices. So it’s on the record numerous times,” Hillary Clinton told reporters after her closed-door session with the committee concluded Thursday.
In prepared opening remarks Clinton denied any knowledge of the crimes committed by Epstein, going on to say making his wife Hillary Clinton testify “was simply not right.”
In his statement as released, he stated that he would often say, “I do not recall” throughout his questioning because the events were “all a long time ago.”
“I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong,” Clinton said, according to the statement.
Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and both deny having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.
No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
Bill Clinton said in his opening statement that he had “no idea of the crimes Epstein was committing.”
Bill Clinton’s association with Epstein was first noted publicly in 2002 after reporters learned of the former president’s flight that year on Epstein’s jet for a humanitarian mission to multiple African nations.
In his statement as released, he stated that he would often say, “I do not recall” throughout his questioning because the events were “all a long time ago.”
“I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong,” Clinton said, according to the statement.
Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and both deny having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.
No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
Bill Clinton said in his opening statement that he had “no idea of the crimes Epstein was committing.”
Bill Clinton’s association with Epstein was first noted publicly in 2002 after reporters learned of the former president’s flight that year on Epstein’s jet for a humanitarian mission to multiple African nations.
None of the flight records from Epstein’s planes that have surfaced in litigation indicate that Clinton was ever aboard for a trip to Epstein’s island.
The Clintons were subpoenaed to appear under oath in front of the committee for a deposition in January, but failed to comply, arguing the subpoenas were without legal merit. Rather, they proposed a four-hour transcribed interview instead.
Following the Clintons’ refusal to appear, the Oversight Committee passed the contempt resolution with nine Democrats voting in favor of it, teeing it up for a full House vote.
At the last minute, just before the resolution was to be voted on in the House, the Clintons agreed to sit for a deposition, postponing further consideration of a contempt vote.
Liam Conejo Ramos, as he is detained, January 20, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Columbia Heights Public Schools)
(MINNEAPOLIS) — An immigration judge has denied Liam Conejo Ramos and his family’s asylum claim, their attorney confirmed.
The 5-year-old boy and his father, Adrian Conejo Arias, were detained on Jan. 20 by immigration agents in Minneapolis and held in a Texas detention facility. A judge ordered them to be released and they flew back to Minnesota on Feb. 1.
Attorney Danielle Molliver told ABC News on Thursday the family was unable to present any evidence in the case before the government filed a motion to terminate the case which a judge granted. Molliver said she has filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals.
“We understand that this decision will be appealed and remain hopeful for a positive outcome,” a spokesperson for Columbia Heights Public School District said earlier in confirming the asylum claim denial. “The detention in January of Liam and his father shed light on the harm caused by Operation Metro Surge, during which many children and families have been detained.”
The boy and his father were detained in January shortly after arriving home from the child’s preschool, school officials had said.
Both were taken to a federal detention facility in Dilley, Texas. They had a pending asylum case but no order of deportation.
The five-year-old’s father told ABC News last month that he wants to remain in the United States with his family, saying they fled Ecuador out of fear.
“I asked for asylum to be here for my family, for my children,” Conejo Arias said. “I’m here because I’m scared of returning to my country.”
In a statement after a judge ordered them to be released, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said, “The facts in this case have NOT changed: ICE did NOT target or arrest a child.”
“On January 20, ICE conducted a targeted operation to arrest Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias an illegal alien from Ecuador who was RELEASED into the U.S. by the Biden administration,” McLaughlin said. “As agents approached, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias fled on foot — abandoning his child.”
McLaughlin said ICE officers remained with Liam while other officers apprehended his father. Officers, according to McLaughlin, attempted to place Liam with his “alleged mother” who was inside the house, but she allegedly refused to accept custody of the child.
McLaughlin said Conejo Arias told officers he wanted his son to remain with him.
The DHS account differs from what the Conejo Arias, his family’s attorney and schools officials said occurred.
Conejo Arias said when he was detained, he was walking a few feet ahead of his son, trying to alert people who “would come out who could help” them.
“I love my son too much. I would never abandon him,” Conejo Arias said.
Officials from Liam’s school said another adult living in the home was outside begging the agents to allow them to take care of the child, but the request was denied.
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.
