Police searching for missing Texas college student: ‘Matter of concern’
Brianna Arango is seen in an undated photo released by the Southern Methodist University Police Department. Southern Methodist University Police Department
(DALLAS) — Police are looking for a missing Texas college student, calling it a “matter of concern.”
Brianna Arango, 21, a student at Southern Methodist University, was last seen midday Thursday on the Dallas campus, according to police.
She was last seen around 12:30 p.m. near Harold Simmons Hall, according to the Southern Methodist University Police Department.
A family member contacted SMU Police at approximately 3:30 p.m. Thursday to report that Arango did not meet with them as planned earlier that afternoon, campus police said. She had a class at 1 p.m. that she also did not attend, police said.
“Based on the information available, SMU Police are actively working to locate Brianna and are treating this as a matter of concern,” the department said in an advisory.
“SMU Police are asking for the campus community’s assistance in locating her,” the advisory added.
Arango was last seen wearing a white shirt, blue sweatpants and carrying a beige tote bag, police said.
Anyone with information on her whereabouts is asked to contact SMU Police at 214-768-3388.
Rufe filed an inspection report on Monday evening, where she wrote that the 34 panels, both glass and metal, are stored in a “secure” place at the National Constitution Center and have not been “destroyed,” but Rufe noted that some panels “exhibited damage.”
“Still to be determined by the Court is the extent of any damage and the integrity of the exhibits regarding their amenability to being restored to their original condition,” Rufe wrote.
Counsel for the Trump administration and for the city of Philadelphia attended the inspection, after which Rufe told reporters that she observed some “marks” on the panels but could not determine when or how they were made.
The panels, which were removed by the National Parks Service on Jan. 22, tell the stories of the nine enslaved Africans who were held by President George Washington at the President’s House, an open-air outdoor exhibit and memorial at Independence National Historical Park that was built where Washington’s mansion originally stood.
The memorial honors the lives of Austin, Christopher Sheels, Giles, Hercules, Joe Richardson, Moll, Oney Judge, Paris and Richmond, all of whom were held at the site by Washington.
Rufe ordered the federal government on Monday to “securely store all removed panels and to mitigate any further deterioration or damage.”
During a hearing on Friday, Rufe said that she planned to inspect the panels as she considers whether NPS’s removal caused “irreparable harm” as she considers a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the city of Philadelphia. The injunction would block the Trump administration from making any further changes to the President’s House as the lawsuit moves forward.
Rufe filed a post-hearing order on Monday, barring any further “removal and/or destruction of the President’s House” site “until further order from the court.”
Avenging the Ancestors Coalition, an advocacy group founded in 2002 by attorney Michael Coard, launched the 2002 campaign to urge the city to include a slavery memorial in the building of the President’s House. The group, which filed a motion to file an amicus brief in support of the city’s lawsuit, also participated in the inspection.
Coard told reporters on Monday that seeing the panels stored in a room against a wall was “completely disrespectful, demoralizing, defiling.”
“There were scratches and marks on several of the 34 items we saw, there was no cushioning. They were up against the wall. They were on the cement floor,” Coard said. “Had they slipped, the glass items would have fallen to the ground.”
“I can’t say, being quite candid, that there was any damage, there was no damage, but there was desecration, and for me, it’s the same thing,” Coard said.
Asked how he defines “desecration,” Coard said, “The Sixth and Market Street site where America’s first White House stood is historical holy ground. And anytime you defile holy ground, you desecrate it.”
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.
Epstein and Maxwell in one of the images released by the US Department of State . (Photo by The US Justice Department / Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Bank of America has reached a proposed, non-binding settlement in a lawsuit that alleged the bank helped facilitate Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking operation, according to court records.
The proposed class-action complaint, filed in October 2025, alleged that Bank of America “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy” to Epstein and ignored suspicious transactions by the late disgraced financier.
A notice on the case’s docket said that lawyers for the bank and the victims “reached a settlement in principle.” The terms of the settlement were not immediately disclosed and would need to be approved by a federal judge. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff had previously scheduled the case to go to trial on May 11.
A court hearing to consider the settlement proposal is scheduled for April 2 in federal court in New York, according to the docket.
Bank of America declined to comment on the proposed settlement to ABC News. An attorney for the victims called the proposed settlement “one more step on the road to much-deserved justice.”
“The women entrapped and abused by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell started a monumental reckoning with their brave voices and fearlessness. The road to justice for these women has been long and trying,” attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement.
Though the terms of the settlement are unknown, a proposed resolution of the case would likely scuttle an upcoming deposition of Apollo Global Management co-founder Leon Black, who was scheduled to sit for questioning on March 26. Black resigned from his role at Apollo in 2021 after an inquiry into his relationship with Epstein, which found that Black paid Epstein $158 million for tax and estate planning advice.
In a statement from January, Black’s attorney said that his client “had no awareness of Epstein’s criminal activities” and that there is “absolutely no truth to any of the allegations against Mr. Black.”
The lawsuit against Bank of America alleged that those payments from Black and other transactions by Epstein should have raised concern by the bank, which “failed to alert law enforcement as to Epstein’s crimes before it was far too late.”
“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including Bank of America. Egregiously, Bank of America had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims,” the lawsuit alleged.
Bank of America had unsuccessfully attempted to persuade the court to dismiss the case by arguing that the suit was “based on nothing more than allegations that it provided routine services to customers who at the time had no known connection to Epstein’s sex trafficking.”
“Bank of America opposes trafficking in all its forms. But this suit attempts to radically expand liability for banks, holding them liable for providing ordinary banking services to individuals one or more steps removed from a trafficker,” a November 2025 filing from the bank’s lawyers said.
