(NEW YORK) — A winter storm brought the first big batch of snow and ice to parts of the Midwest and South on Monday, and now that same storm is bringing ice to parts of Appalachia and heavy snow to the inland Northeast on Tuesday.
On Monday, the Kansas City area saw 3 to 5 inches of snow, while Louisville recorded around 3 inches of snow. St. Louis, Missouri, and Indianapolis both recorded about 2 to 4 inches of snow.
A glaze of ice wreaked havoc on roads in places like Oklahoma and Arkansas on Monday, and on Tuesday, that ice will be a major threat for cities including Boone, North Carolina, and Roanoke, Virginia.
On Tuesday, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and western New York could see 2 to 4 inches of snow.
Winter weather advisories are in place in northern Pennsylvania and central New York, where 4 to 6 inches of snow is possible.
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy declared a state of emergency in several counties.
“With snow and rain in the forecast, we urge all New Jerseyans to be cautious of icy roads and walkways,” he warned on social media on Tuesday.
Cities directly along the East Coast will be warmer and will likely only get rain, but there is a brief chance for a morning wintry mix around Washington, D.C., that could cause disruption on roads.
A winter storm warning is in place from northeast Pennsylvania to central Maine, where more than 6 inches of snow is in the forecast. Some spots could even see snow totals of 9 to 12 inches.
By Tuesday night, the rain will be ending in New York City but ongoing in Boston, while snow will still falling from Albany, New York, through Maine.
(NEW YORK) — Children who have smartphones by age 12 are at higher risk of lack of sleep, obesity and depression, according to a new study published Monday in the journal Pediatrics.
What’s more, researchers found that the earlier a child received a smartphone, the greater their risk of developing these conditions.
Dr. Ran Barzilay, lead author of the study and a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told ABC News that many experts suggest parents should postpone the age at which children receive their first smartphone.
Barzilay said he and his colleagues wanted to examine whether not delaying smartphone use by children would lead to negative health outcomes. He also had a personal motivation behind the study.
“I have a nine-year-old who wants a phone, and I think [whether to get them a smartphone] is a question that is relevant for every parent of a kid going into adolescence, even before adolescence,” said Barzilay, who’s also an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
The study team – comprised of researchers from the University of Pennsylvania; University of California, Berkeley; and Columbia University – looked at data from more than 10,500 participants in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, which is an ongoing study assessing brain development in children throughout adolescence.
Researchers analyzed data on children between ages 9 and 16, collected from 2016 to 2022, to test how smartphone ownership and the age at which a child or teen received their first smartphone affected their health outcomes.
The team found that compared to 12-year-olds who didn’t own a smartphone, those who did had a 1.3 times higher risk of depression, a 1.4 times higher risk of obesity, and a 1.6 times higher risk of insufficient sleep.
Additionally, the earlier the age at which a child received a smartphone, the greater the risk of developing the problems increased – by about 10% for each year earlier in age, starting as young as age 4 – compared to kids who received a device later or not at all.
The study also found that children aged 13 who did not have a smartphone at age 12 but acquired one within the last year also had worse mental health outcomes and poor sleep. This held true even when the researchers controlled for those factors.
“This was quite surprising, I must say,” Barzilay said. “I mean, we designed the study with a question in mind to try and test it, but to find it was quite compelling.”
Barzilay said that while the study only proves association, not causation, it adds to a growing body of evidence linking smartphone use among children to adverse health outcomes.
In a longitudinal review of studies by the American Psychological Association, the emphasis is not only to cut down on screentime – which is linked to socioemotional problems in children – but also to improve the quality and social interactions through screentime.
The team behind the new study, published in Pediatric,s recommended that parents, children and pediatricians have a thoughtful discussion to determine whether children are ready for a phone.
Barzilay said the study results aren’t meant to put blame on parents who gave their kids smartphones at age 12 or younger, noting that his older two children received smartphones prior to age 12.
He added that smartphones do have some benefits, such as increasing connectivity and access to information. However, Barzilay said parents can implement some rules to limit the potential harm smartphone use can cause. Those rules could include not allowing kids to use them in their bedroom at night, and making sure that their children participate in activities that do not require phone use.
As for Barzilay’s nine-year-old who wants a phone, he said they’re “not getting a phone anytime soon. Clear decision.”
(NEW YORK) — A social media commentator and blogger was found liable on Monday in a defamation lawsuit filed by hip-hop star Megan Thee Stallion in October 2024.
Milagro Cooper was found liable for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and promotion of an altered sexual depiction, according to court documents obtained by ABC News.
Megan Thee Stallion, whose legal name is Megan Pete, testified that Cooper, who is known on social media as blogger Milagro Gramz, participated in a targeted and coordinated social media campaign to harass, intimidate and defame her.
Pete alleged Cooper was a “paid surrogate” for rapper Tory Lanez and spread lies on his behalf. Lanez was convicted of shooting and injuring Pete in a July 2020 incident.
“We’re thankful for the jury’s commitment to reinforcing the importance of truth, accountability and responsible commentary on social media,” Megan’s attorney, Mari Henderson, said in a statement. “This verdict sends a clear message that spreading dangerous misinformation carries significant consequences.”
Cooper is required to pay $75,000 in damages to Pete.
“I am not ecstatic, of course, you want things to go your way, but like I said, I respect the jury and what they decided, and I think I made out pretty good,” Cooper told reporters outside the courthouse on Monday, according to ABC affiliate WSVN.
“I am just happy to be moving forward; things will be handled. It wasn’t a multimillion-dollar verdict and I think that’s a blessing. God is good through and through,” Cooper added.
The lawsuit alleges that Cooper spread lies about Pete to punish her and attempt to discredit her after she publicly named Lanez as her shooter.
“She’s created a space for a lot of people to come speak negatively about me,” Pete said in trial testimony last month of Cooper, referencing social media posts where the blogger attacked Pete’s character, casting her as a liar and mentally unstable.
Cooper, who took the stand earlier in November, testified that as a blogger, she discussed the shooting on her social media accounts without the influence of Tory Lanez, whose legal name is Daystar Peterson.
But Cooper did acknowledge that she spoke with Peterson and was hoping to have him as a guest on her channel. She also testified that she received payments from Peterson’s father, Sonstar Peterson, but claimed they were for “personal” reasons like her children’s birthdays and “promotional” work.
The jury was shown social media posts in which Cooper claimed that Pete was not shot.
When asked if she believed that Pete was shot, Cooper said, “I can’t say she lied about that because I wasn’t there,” but then Cooper said that she believed that Pete was not shot and had stepped on glass — a claim that Pete made in her initial statement to police.
Peterson is not named as a defendant in Pete’s defamation lawsuit but was asked to give a deposition ahead of the trial. ABC News has reached out to his attorneys, but requests for comment were not immediately returned.
Peterson, who chose not to take the witness stand during the 2022 trial, pleaded not guilty and his defense attorneys argued during the trial that he was not the shooter.
Peterson was sentenced to 10 years in prison without the possibility of parole on Aug. 8, 2023, after he was convicted in December 2022 of felony assault for shooting and injuring Pete in both of her feet in an incident that occurred in the Hollywood Hills on July 12, 2020.
His legal team appealed his conviction, but it was upheld on Nov. 12 by a federal court in Los Angeles.
(NEW YORK) — Former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey and the Trump administration have not talked about settling her civil lawsuit and do not believe alternatives to a trial “would be useful at this time,” the parties told the judge in a letter on Monday.
Comey is suing over her firing, arguing she was “abruptly and wrongfully terminated” because her father is former FBI director James Comey, or because of her perceived political affiliation and beliefs.
In the letter, her lawyers and the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Northern District of New York, which is handling the case for the Justice Department, affirmed the need for a conference with the judge, which is currently scheduled for Thursday.
Comey wants the judge to order the government to begin producing evidence. Government lawyers are expected to ask the judge for time to file a motion to dismiss the case.
The defense said the proper place for Comey to argue is not in court, but before the Merit Systems Protection Board. Comey’s attorneys said her case presents “novel” issues about executive power that a judge must resolve.
“While there are cases that discuss a President’s authority under Article II to remove Principal Officers and Inferior Officers, we are unaware of any decision that discusses (let alone approves of) a President’s use of Article II authority to remove without cause a non-officer civil service employee such as a line-level Assistant United States Attorney, in direct violation of the CSRA and the Bill of Rights,” Comey’s attorneys, Nicole Gueron, Ellen Blain, Deepa Vanamali and Margaret Donovan wrote.
The defense characterized Comey’s case as routine.
“A federal employee’s claims that removal from federal service was arbitrary and capricious or conducted in a manner that did not provide the process to which they contend they were due is not a novel issue,” government attorneys said.
The letter said there are no meaningful settlement talks, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms would be unhelpful at the moment.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin speaks at the National Safer Communities Summit in 2023. (Bing Guan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — A group of anti-abortion pregnancy centers in New Jersey is asking the Supreme Court on Tuesday to let it challenge an investigative subpoena from the state’s Democratic attorney general in federal court on grounds it violates the First Amendment.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a faith-based organization that operates five locations across the state, claims the subpoena is part of a “hostile” campaign by Attorney General Matthew Platkin to harass the group and discourage people from supporting it.
The subpoena seeks thousands of pages of documents to determine whether the group “engaged in deceptive or otherwise unlawful conduct,” including the names and contact information of donors who may have wished to remain private.
“His demand for donor disclosure objectively chills First Choice’s associational and speech rights, causing its donors to think twice before supporting the faith-based non-profit,” the group’s attorneys argue in court filings.
Platikin insists he is pursuing a legitimate law enforcement inquiry and that First Choice has not yet been ordered by a state court to comply with the subpoena. (It is not self-executing, meaning there are no penalties for failure to comply in the meantime.)
“Non-profits, including crisis pregnancy centers, may not deceive or defraud residents in our State, and we may exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure that they are not doing so — as we do to protect New Jerseyans from a range of harms,” Platkin said in a statement.
“The question before the U.S. Supreme Court focuses on whether First Choice sued prematurely, not whether our subpoena was valid,” he added. “I am optimistic that we will prevail.”
The case has potentially sweeping stakes for nonprofits and advocacy groups nationwide. If First Choice wins the ability to preemptively challenge the subpoena in federal court, it could make it easier for organizations to resist state investigations and strengthen the privacy of donors.
The dispute arose in the wake of the Supreme Court decision overruling Roe v. Wade and as states started drawing new battle lines over abortion.
Platkin pledged in 2022 to pursue enforcement actions aimed at promoting abortion access, which remains legal in New Jersey, and launched an investigation into First Choice on the belief that it may have engaged in false advertising and misled donors.
The attorney general issued a consumer alert in 2023 warning people with unplanned pregnancies that crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice don’t offer abortion as an option and may try to prevent a client from seeking medical information about ways to terminate a pregnancy.
“New Jersey’s attorney general is targeting First Choice — a ministry that provides parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and more to its community — simply because of its pro-life views,” said Erin Hawley, the attorney representing the group before the Supreme Court, in a statement.
“The Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from demands by a hostile state official to disclose their identities,” Hawley argued, “and First Choice is entitled to vindicate those rights in federal court.”
In a 2021 decision, the Supreme Court divided 6-3 along ideological lines to strike down a California law that required charities to privately disclose the identities of major donors to the state attorney general.
State officials had argued that the identities, which not-for-profit charities are allowed to keep secret from the public, would help enforce rules around tax-exempt status and catch potential fraud.
The New Jersey case, while similar, focuses primarily on where and when a targeted group can challenge an attorney general’s request in court.
After oral arguments Tuesday, the justices will draft an opinion in the case and release it sometime before the end of June 2026.
The logo for the Justice Department (Photographer: Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — An immigration judge who was fired by the Trump administration is suing the Department of Justice, alleging she is a victim of unlawful discrimination.
Tania Nemer, a former immigration judge in Ohio, filed a lawsuit Monday claiming she was dismissed based on her gender, her dual citizenship with the country of Lebanon, and her previous run for local office as a Democrat, in violation of civil rights law.
Nemer was “abruptly fired” in the middle of her probationary period despite receiving “the highest possible performance,” the lawsuit alleges.
“The lightning-fast, precipitous timing indicates that the incoming Administration’s decision was made — not as part of a careful evaluation of Ms. Nemer’s qualifications or fitness for office — but instead as part of a rushed attempt by the new Administration to target disfavored civil servants,” the complaint states.
The former Cleveland judge is among the more than 100 immigration judges who have been fired, resigned through the Department of Government Efficiency’s “Fork in the Road” offer, or transferred out of immigration adjudication, according to the union representing immigration judges.
Nemer’s attorneys said in the filing that she was escorted out of court at the time of her dismissal, and that Nemer’s supervisor and the acting chief immigration judge both said they did not know why she was being fired.
“And to this day, the government has failed to offer any coherent and legitimate nondiscriminatory rationale for her termination,” the lawyers wrote.
Shortly after she was fired, Nemer filed a formal discrimination complaint with an Equal Employment Opportunity office, which dismissed the case.
“The EEO office issued a final agency decision that dismissed Ms. Nemer’s complaint and asserted that Title VII does not constrain discriminatory dismissal against immigration judges because the statute purportedly conflicts with the Article II removal power,” according to the complaint.
“That is simply not true,” her attorneys said in the complaint. “Nothing in the Constitution gives the executive branch the right to discriminate.”
The lawyers called the DOJ’s position that it can fire federal employees without a reason — despite civil rights statutes — a “breathtaking assault on a landmark federal statute.”
According to the complaint, a DOJ official submitted an affidavit that detailed driving infractions involving Nemer, as well as two local tax cases from 2010 and 2011, which the former immigration judge alleged in the complaint that she had disclosed as part of a background check to become an immigration judge.
Nemer’s attorneys said in the complaint that the DOJ official “created the misleading impression that the prior infractions were somehow connected to Nemer’s termination.”
The former immigration judge is asking a court in D.C. for a “declaration that the government violated her rights; reinstatement; and compensatory damages.”
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before boarding Air Force One on November 16, 2025, at Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida. Trump spent the weekend at his Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The White House released the results of President Donald Trump’s recent advanced imaging tests on Monday, describing them as “perfectly normal.”
The memo from Dr. Sean Barbabella, physician to the president, said Trump underwent the scans during a medical examination in October “because men in his age group benefit from a thorough evaluation of cardiovascular and abdominal health” and that the tests are “preventative.”
Barbabella said the imaging helps confirm Trump’s overall health and identifies any early issues before they become serious.
Although Trump referred to the tests as an MRI, Barbarella did not use the term in his memo.
The cardiac imaging test, which looks at the heart and its blood vessels, showed no evidence of arterial narrowing, Barbabella wrote. Arterial narrowing is a condition that occurs when plaque builds up and reduces blood flow, causing symptoms including chest pain and shortness of breath.
Additionally, Trump’s cardiac scan did not show abnormalities in the heart or major vessels, according to Barbabella, and his heart chambers were described as normal in size with no signs of inflammation or clotting.
When the chambers of the heart are either too big or too small, this can cause the organ to work harder than usual to pump blood throughout the body.
“Overall, his cardiovascular system shows excellent health,” Barbabella wrote.
Barbabella also wrote in the memo that Trump’s abdominal imaging scan was normal with all major organs appearing healthy and well-perfused, meaning with a high blood flow relative to their size.
“Everything evaluated is functioning within normal limits with no acute or chronic concerns,” he wrote. “This level of detailed assessment is standard for an executive physical at President Trump’s age and confirms that he remains in excellent overall health.”
Trump said during a gaggle with reporters on Air Force One in late October that he received an MRI as part of “advanced imaging” tests at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, but didn’t answer questions on what the scan was for.
On Sunday, Trump said he was fine with the MRI results being released, but was unsure of the area of the body that was scanned.
“So, if they want to release it, it’s okay with me to release it. It’s perfect,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One. “But if you want to have it released, I’ll release it, absolutely.”
When asked which body part received MRI scanning, Trump replied, “I have no idea. It was just an MRI — what part of the body? It wasn’t the brain, because I took a cognitive test and I aced it.”
Luigi Mangione appears at a hearing for the murder of UHC CEO Brian Thompson at Manhattan Criminal Court, Feb. 21, 2025, in New York. (Curtis Means/Pool/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — For the first time, prosecutors played the 911 call that led to the arrest of Luigi Mangione, as the alleged killer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson is in court in New York City on Monday for a multi-day hearing that could determine the balance of evidence in his state murder trial.
Mangione, 27, was arrested at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania, five days after the fatal shooting of Thompson in midtown Manhattan last year.
“I have a customer here that some other customers were suspicious of, that he looks like the CEO shooter from New York,” an unnamed McDonald’s manager told a Blair County emergency dispatcher, according to a recording of the 911 call played in open court in Manhattan.
The recording was played during the testimony of Emily States, the 911 Coordinator for Blair County Emergency Services. She authenticated the video before prosecutors played it for the judge.
According to the manager, an older female customer was “really upset” and “frantic” after seeing Mangione eating breakfast in the rear of the McDonald’s. She noted that the customer was trying to be “non-discreet” while she scoped out the suspected killer.
“I can’t approach him,” the female manager told the dispatcher, identifying Mangione by his black jacket, surgical mask and tan beanie.
“He shot the CEO. I got you,” the dispatcher responds at one point.
The manager tried to identify Mangione by his size — “mid height” and “mid weight” — but appeared to struggle to list any identifiable characteristics beyond his clothing, according to the recording.
“The only thing you can see are his eyebrows,” the manager said. “I don’t know what to do here, guys.”
The recording itself is occasionally muffled and interrupted by the sounds of a bustling McDonald’s in the background, including breakfast orders being placed. Toward the end of the recording, the dispatcher confirms that an officer is en route to the McDonald’s.
“I do have an officer on the way for you. Just keep an eye on him. If he leaves, let us know,” the dispatcher said.
Mangione, sitting in the courtroom, leaned forward in his chair while the audio played, occasionally writing down notes of the call.
The judge has not yet ruled on whether to allow the audio into the trial.
Mangione’s attorneys are trying to limit prosecutors from using key evidence — including a 3D-printed gun and purported journal writings — police say they obtained when they arrested him in Pennsylvania last year.
Earlier during Monday’s hearing, Mangione leaned on his left hand and stared at a large screen at the front of the courtroom, gazing at images police in New York City disseminated following the murder of Thompson.
The images allegedly depict Mangione at a Starbucks, on a bicycle, at a hostel, in the back of a taxi and with a gun taking aim at Thompson as the United Healthcare chief executive strolled toward the Hilton in Midtown.
The NYPD posted the images to social media following the killing as it asked the public for help identifying the suspect wanted for a “premeditated targeted attack” and announced a $10,000 reward for information leading to arrest.
With Sgt. Christopher McLaughlin on the witness stand, prosecutor Joel Seidemann played a video of the shooting allegedly depicting Mangione firing more than once, Thompson buckling against the building facade, and Mangione calmly walking by the victim.
Prosecutors seem intent on firmly establishing Mangione as the definitive suspect as the defense raises questions about officers approaching him five days later at the McDonald’s in Altoona.
Bernard Pyles, who works for the company that installed security cameras at the McDonald’s, testified Monday that he was asked to retrieve footage for the police.
“We were told there was an arrest made and they need footage,” Pyles said. “We were looking for a certain individual on the footage in order to cut out the pieces they needed.”
On Dec. 9, McDonalds cameras allegedly captured Mangione ordering from a kiosk, waiting at the counter and picking up his order. Mangione is allegedly seen on a different camera carrying his food, taking a seat in a back corner table and wiping it down.
The individual that police identified as Mangione remained at the table 25 minutes before camera showed police officers arriving and confronting him.
Defense attorneys have argued Altoona police officers questioned Mangione for 20 minutes before reading him his rights, and also searched his backpack without a warrant.
Nearly two dozen Mangione supporters seated in the back row of the courtroom craned their necks to get a look at the accused killer as he entered the courtroom at the start of Monday’s hearing. Some were dressed in T-shirts displaying slogans about the case, including one saying “Justice is not a spectacle.”
Though no trial date has been set for either Mangione’s state or federal criminal cases, the outcome of this week’s hearing will determine the shape of the case Mangione and his lawyers will face at trial. If they succeed in limiting key evidence, prosecutors could lose the ability to use Mangione’s writings — which prosecutors say paint a clear motive for the crime — and the alleged murder weapon.
“I finally feel confident about what I will do,” Mangione allegedly wrote in a notebook seized from his backpack, later included in court filings. “The target is insurance. It checks every box.”
This week’s hearing in New York’s State Supreme Court — where Mangione is charged with second-degree murder — follows a legal victory for Mangione’s defense when the judge in September tossed two murder charges related to an act of terrorism. He is still charged with second-degree murder and other offenses, as well as a separate criminal case in federal court. If convicted in state court, Mangione faces a potential life sentence, and he could face the death penalty in his federal case.
Mangione is accused of gunning down Thompson — a father of two who spent two decades working for UnitedHealthcare before being named its CEO — last December outside a Midtown Manhattan hotel before allegedly fleeing the city. He was arrested on Dec. 9 at the McDonald’s in Altoona after someone reported seeing a “suspicious male that looked like the shooter from New York City.”
Defense lawyers are trying to bar prosecutors from using any of the evidence recovered from the backpack — including electronic devices, a 3D-printed gun, silencer, and a journal — as well as referencing any statements Mangione made to police. Lawyers with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office have defended the lawfulness of the arrest and search and are expected to argue that the evidence would have inevitably been recovered during the discovery process ahead of trial.
“Despite the gravest of consequences for Mr. Mangione, law enforcement has methodically and purposefully trampled his constitutional rights,” Mangione’s attorney argued in their motion.
Defense lawyers argue the constitutional issues began almost immediately after officers approached Mangione, who was seated in the McDonald’s to have breakfast. After Mangione allegedly provided officers with a fake driver’s license, they immediately began questioning Mangione about whether he was recently in New York and why he lied about his identity, defense lawyers say. As he was questioned, defense lawyers say officers filled the restaurant to form an “armed human wall trapping Mr. Mangione at the back of the restaurant.”
Citing time-stamped police body camera footage, Mangione’s attorneys allege police waited 20 minutes to read his Miranda Rights and extensively questioned him without informing him he was under investigation or that he had the right to remain silent. They have asked New York State Supreme Court Judge Gregory Carro to prohibit prosecutors from introducing any evidence or testimony related to what they say was an illegal interrogation at the McDonald’s.
Defense lawyers also contend that an officer illegally searched Mangione’s bag while he was being interrogated, eventually discovering a loaded magazine and handgun. Despite another officer commenting, “at this point we probably need a search warrant” for the bag, Mangione’s attorneys argue that the officer continued searching the bag and claimed she was trying to make sure there “wasn’t a bomb or anything” in the bag.
“[The officer] did not search the bag because she reasonably thought there might be a bomb, but rather this was an excuse designed to cover up an illegal warrantless search of the backpack,” they argue. “This made-up bomb claim further shows that even she believed at the time that there were constitutional issues with her search, forcing her to attempt to salvage this debacle by making this spurious claim.”
Mangione’s attorneys argue that any of the items recovered from the backpack, including his alleged writings and weapon, should be limited as “fruit” of an illegal search.
Ahead of the hearing, Mangione’s attorneys have previewed plans to call at least two witnesses from the Altoona Police Department. During an unrelated court hearing last week, one of Mangione’s attorneys claimed that the hearing could include more than two dozen witnesses and hours of body camera footage.
Judge Carro has set aside several days beginning Monday to hear arguments about whether the testimony and evidence can be suppressed.
Luigi Mangione appears at a hearing for the murder of UHC CEO Brian Thompson at Manhattan Criminal Court, Feb. 21, 2025, in New York. (Curtis Means/Pool/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — One year after prosecutors say Luigi Mangione brazenly assassinated UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in midtown Manhattan, the 27-year-old is back in court Monday for a multi-day hearing that could determine the balance of evidence in his state murder trial.
Mangione’s attorneys are trying to limit prosecutors from using key evidence — including a 3D-printed gun and purported journal writings — police say they obtained when they arrested him in Pennsylvania last year.
Mangione entered the courtroom and took a seat next to his attorneys, Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Marc Agnifilo, as nearly two dozen Mangione supporters seated in the back row of the courtroom craned their necks to get a look at the accused killer. Some were dressed in T-shirts displaying slogans about the case, including one saying “Justice is not a spectacle.”
During the hearing, Mangione leaned on his left hand and stared at a large screen at the front of the courtroom, gazing at images police in New York City disseminated following the murder of Thompson.
The images allegedly depict Mangione at a Starbucks, on a bicycle, at a hostel, in the back of a taxi and with a gun taking aim at Thompson as the United Healthcare chief executive strolled toward the Hilton in Midtown.
The NYPD posted the images to social media following the killing as it asked the public for help identifying the suspect wanted for a “premeditated targeted attack” and announced a $10,000 reward for information leading to arrest.
With Sgt. Christopher McLaughlin on the witness stand, prosecutor Joel Seidemann played a video of the shooting allegedly depicting Mangione firing more than once, Thompson buckling against the building facade, and Mangione calmly walking by the victim.
Prosecutors seem intent on firmly establishing Mangione as the definitive suspect as the defense raises questions about officers approaching him five days later at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania.
Bernard Pyles, who works for the company that installed security cameras at the McDonald’s, testified Monday that he was asked to retrieve footage for the police.
“We were told there was an arrest made and they need footage,” Pyles said. “We were looking for a certain individual on the footage in order to cut out the pieces they needed.”
On Dec. 9, McDonalds cameras allegedly captured Mangione ordering from a kiosk, waiting at the counter and picking up his order. Mangione is allegedly seen on a different camera carrying his food, taking a seat in a back corner table and wiping it down.
The individual that police identified as Mangione remained at the table 25 minutes before camera showed police officers arriving and confronting him.
Defense attorneys have argued Altoona police officers questioned Mangione for 20 minutes before reading him his rights, and also searched his backpack without a warrant.
Though no trial date has been set for either Mangione’s state or federal criminal cases, the outcome of this week’s hearing will determine the shape of the case Mangione and his lawyers will face at trial. If they succeed in limiting key evidence, prosecutors could lose the ability to use Mangione’s writings — which prosecutors say paint a clear motive for the crime — and the alleged murder weapon.
“I finally feel confident about what I will do,” Mangione allegedly wrote in a notebook seized from his backpack, later included in court filings. “The target is insurance. It checks every box.”
This week’s hearing in New York’s State Supreme Court — where Mangione is charged with second-degree murder — follows a legal victory for Mangione’s defense when the judge in September tossed two murder charges related to an act of terrorism. He is still charged with second-degree murder and other offenses, as well as a separate criminal case in federal court. If convicted in state court, Mangione faces a potential life sentence, and he could face the death penalty in his federal case.
Mangione is accused of gunning down Thompson — a father of two who spent two decades working for UnitedHealthcare before being named its CEO — last December outside a Midtown Manhattan hotel before allegedly fleeing the city. He was arrested on Dec. 9 at the McDonald’s in Altoona after someone reported seeing a “suspicious male that looked like the shooter from New York City.”
Defense lawyers are trying to bar prosecutors from using any of the evidence recovered from the backpack — including electronic devices, a 3D-printed gun, silencer, and a journal — as well as referencing any statements Mangione made to police. Lawyers with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office have defended the lawfulness of the arrest and search and are expected to argue that the evidence would have inevitably been recovered during the discovery process ahead of trial.
“Despite the gravest of consequences for Mr. Mangione, law enforcement has methodically and purposefully trampled his constitutional rights,” Mangione’s attorney argued in their motion.
Defense lawyers argue the constitutional issues began almost immediately after officers approached Mangione, who was seated in the McDonald’s to have breakfast. After Mangione allegedly provided officers with a fake driver’s license, they immediately began questioning Mangione about whether he was recently in New York and why he lied about his identity, defense lawyers say. As he was questioned, defense lawyers say officers filled the restaurant to form an “armed human wall trapping Mr. Mangione at the back of the restaurant.”
Citing time-stamped police body camera footage, Mangione’s attorneys allege police waited 20 minutes to read his Miranda Rights and extensively questioned him without informing him he was under investigation or that he had the right to remain silent. They have asked New York State Supreme Court Judge Gregory Carro to prohibit prosecutors from introducing any evidence or testimony related to what they say was an illegal interrogation at the McDonald’s.
Defense lawyers also contend that an officer illegally searched Mangione’s bag while he was being interrogated, eventually discovering a loaded magazine and handgun. Despite another officer commenting, “at this point we probably need a search warrant” for the bag, Mangione’s attorneys argue that the officer continued searching the bag and claimed she was trying to make sure there “wasn’t a bomb or anything” in the bag.
“[The officer] did not search the bag because she reasonably thought there might be a bomb, but rather this was an excuse designed to cover up an illegal warrantless search of the backpack,” they argue. “This made-up bomb claim further shows that even she believed at the time that there were constitutional issues with her search, forcing her to attempt to salvage this debacle by making this spurious claim.”
Mangione’s attorneys argue that any of the items recovered from the backpack, including his alleged writings and weapon, should be limited as “fruit” of an illegal search.
Ahead of the hearing, Mangione’s attorneys have previewed plans to call at least two witnesses from the Altoona Police Department. During an unrelated court hearing last week, one of Mangione’s attorneys claimed that the hearing could include more than two dozen witnesses and hours of body camera footage.
Judge Carro has set aside several days beginning Monday to hear arguments about whether the testimony and evidence can be suppressed.
Alina Habba, interim US attorney for New Jersey, is sworn-in during a ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, March 28, 2025. (Photographer: Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A federal appeals court has disqualified President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney Alina Habba from serving as the U.S. attorney for New Jersey.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court decision that found her appointment violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
Trump nominated Habba to the U.S. attorney post but she was not confirmed by the Senate. When district court judges declined to appoint her to the position, the administration installed her by formally withdrawing her nomination then placing her in a role that allowed her to serve in the position, in what a U.S. district judge called a “novel series of legal and personnel moves.”
The appeals court ruled the maneuver was improper.
“Habba is not the Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey by virtue of her appointment as First Assistant U.S. Attorney because only the first assistant in place at the time the vacancy arises automatically assumes the functions and duties of the office under the FVRA,” the court wrote, referring to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
“Additionally, because Habba was nominated for the vacant U.S. Attorney position, the FVRA’s nomination bar prevents her from assuming the role of Acting U.S. Attorney. Finally, the Attorney General’s delegation of all the powers of a U.S. Attorney to Habba is prohibited by the FVRA’s exclusivity provision,” the opinion said.
The ruling marks the first time a federal appeals court has ruled against the Trump administration’s attempt to keep interim U.S. attorneys in their posts after their temporary appointments lapse, potentially resulting in nationwide implications for federal prosecutors installed in the same way as Habba.
After Habba’s interim appointment expired and the district court sought to put in a new top prosecutor, the Trump administration placed her in a lower position — First Assistant U.S. Attorney — that allowed her to assume the top job once her original nomination was withdrawn.
In a 3-0 decision, the appeals court concluded that Habba’s original nomination for the U.S. attorney position barred her from assuming the acting job. The court also rejected the argument that the attorney general has the power to delegate the powers of U.S. attorney to Habba.
The ruling from the three-judge panel — composed of two judges put on the bench by George W. Bush and one by Joe Biden — comes on the heels of a high-profile decision last week disqualifying Trump’s handpicked prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, who had brought criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
