NY Times - A federal judge on Friday dismissed the criminal case against the immigrant Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, ruling that the Trump administration had brought human smuggling charges against him as part of a vindictive effort to punish him for challenging his wrongful deportation to El Salvador last year.
The ruling by the judge, Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr., was a stinging rebuke of both the Justice Department and its top official, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general. Judge Crenshaw singled out Mr. Blanche for criticism in his 32-page opinion, pointing to statements he had made that prosecutors reawakened a dormant investigation into Mr. Abrego Garcia only after a different judge in Maryland questioned the administration’s decision to deport him — along with scores of other immigrants — to a notorious Salvadoran prison in March 2025.
Mr. Abrego Garcia, who is still fighting the administration’s efforts to expel him from the country, is perhaps the best-known symbol of President Trump's aggressive deportation agenda. And his release from criminal charges because of what Judge Crenshaw called their “vindictive taint” was another blow to Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown, which had already been battered by, among other things, the killings of two protesters in Minnesota by federal agents.
Alternet - Bloomberg reports a senior Washington federal judge lobbed a rare rebuke condemning president by President Donald Trump’s “vitriolic attacks” against the judiciary have led to an increase in violent threats.
“The President knows that mob mentality is a powerful force. And dog whistles count, too,” said Senior Judge Paul Friedman of the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
Speaking to a crowd of lawyers and judges earlier this year, Friedman said Trump, since winning reelection in 2024, has “ratcheted up to a new level his personal, vitriolic attacks on judges who have ruled against him or with whom he disagrees,” said Friedman, adding that his attacks “have gotten more partisan, more personal, more threatening, and more purposefully misleading than ever before.”
Combined with Trump’s “incitement” of the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol and eventual pardons of those rioters, Friedman said Trump “contributed significantly” toward a trend of threatening judges.
It is a damning blast from a sitting judge, but Friedman is only the latest judge to warn of rising threats to judges and how the intimidations impact the judicial system’s independence.
Press Watch - The stunning collapse of a politically-motivated prosecution in Chicago, which came after a judge discovered that Justice Department lawyers had engaged in gross misconduct to secure a grand jury indictment, ought to be an inflection point for coverage of Trump’s DOJ.
The Chicago case makes for an extraordinary read. The “Broadview Six” were initially indicted on felony conspiracy charges for protesting outside an ICE facility. But all charges were dropped on Thursday after Judge April Perry saw a grand jury transcript that prosecutors had resisted turning over to her.
It contained numerous examples of misconduct, including a prosecutor personally “vouching” about the strength of the case. The defendants are now asking the judge to order prosecutors to preserve records of all their communications. It’s basically a huge mess and a vindication of the suspicion that prosecutors, under pressure from Washington, are abusing their power.
Historically, charges emerging from federal grand jury proceedings have been seen to carry a certain amount of credibility. The presumption by reporters, and by the general public, has been that the prosecutor was acting in good faith and had presented clear evidence under a reasonable legal theory sufficient to persuade a bunch of ordinary citizens that the person was probably guilty -- in short, that prosecutors had a serious case. That presumption, to use a legal phrase, is now moot.
So from this point on, reporters should treat grand jury indictments – particularly in political cases -- with great skepticism. The thrust of their news articles – including their headlines – should be that the Justice Department has made a decision to go after the defendant, not that prosecutors have overcome any sort of significant legal hurdle.
Reporters should also explain that grand juries have historically been highly susceptible to prosecution arguments – ergo their reputation as “rubber stamps” and the origin of the saying that “a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”
Reporters should provide background about Trump’s reforging of the Justice Department into a tool of retribution that routinely launches bogus investigations and prosecutions of people who have opposed him. They should note that prosecutors are under intense pressure to please the White Hous
