Ohio
Officer won’t be charged in shooting death of teen who was holding a gun during a chase
CINCINNATI (AP) — A Cincinnati police officer will not be charged in the shooting death of an 18-year-old who was holding a gun and running from police who were responding to a call about a stolen car, a prosecutor said Tuesday.
A day after the shooting, the teen’s father struck and killed a county deputy with his car in what authorities have said was an intentional act. The father, who had watched body camera footage of the shooting just hours before the crash, has pleaded not guilty to aggravated murder in the deputy’s death.
Hamilton County Prosecutor Connie Pillich said a review of the May 1 shooting death of Ryan Hinton found that the officer was “legally justified in his use of force.”
Hinton had a fully loaded gun and pointed it at officers when they confronted him, Pillich said.
The officer who fired told investigators that Hinton pointed the gun at him during a foot chase, Pillich said. Police released photos of a semiautomatic handgun that they said Hinton was carrying and another gun that was found in the car.
One officer could be heard in body camera video released by police saying “he’s got a gun” before several shots were fired as Hinton was running behind an apartment complex.
While blurred images released after the shooting did not clearly show Hinton pointing a gun, Cincinnati Police Chief Teresa Theetge said the officer told investigators that Hinton had the gun in front of him and pointed at the officer. The officer said he feared for his life, the chief said.
Police and the prosecutor did not release the name of the officer.
An attorney representing Hinton’s family said they disagreed with the prosecutor’s findings and plan to file a lawsuit.
Meanwhile, authorities have accused Hinton’s father, Rodney Hinton Jr., 38, of running down a deputy who was not involved in his son’s shooting.
Deputy Larry Ray Henderson Jr. was directing traffic near the University of Cincinnati when he was hit by a car that drove into an intersection, police said.
Henderson was struck a few hours after Rodney Hinton Jr. and other family members watched police body camera footage showing the officer fatally shoot his son. Rodney Hinton Jr.’s attorney has said he is not guilty by reason of insanity.
Florida
Judge finds attorney general in contempt over immigration law
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday found Florida’s attorney general to be in civil contempt over her ruling that put on hold a new state law making it a misdemeanor for people living in the U.S. illegally to enter the state.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams said that Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier was unconvincing in his arguments that he didn’t flout her injunction putting the law on hold. Uthmeier had sent out a memo saying the judge was legally wrong and that he couldn’t prevent police officers and deputies from enforcing the law. A contempt hearing was held two weeks ago in Miami.
“Litigants cannot change the plain meaning of words as it suits them, especially when conveying a court’s clear and unambiguous order,” Williams wrote. “Fidelity to the rule of law can have no other meaning.”
For sanctions, the judge ordered Uthmeier to file biweekly reports to her about whether any arrests, detentions or law enforcement actions have been made under the law, which is being challenged in court by immigrant rights groups.
In a social media post, Uthmeier said, “If being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump’s agenda on illegal immigration, so be it.”
A day ago, the judge denied a request by Uthmeier to put on hold her earlier injunction while it is being appealed. The injunction barred law enforcement from enforcing the immigration law, as Williams said it’s likely the law will be found unconstitutional.
Williams’ decision followed an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling earlier this month denying a similar request from Uthmeier. The appellate judges said the case was far from being resolved.
“But we’re mindful that the burden in this posture is for the Attorney General to make a ‘strong showing’ that he is likely to succeed on the merits. And we do not think he tips the balance in his favor,” the judges wrote, noting Uthmeier’s “seemingly defiant posture” regarding Williams’ earlier order.
After Williams issued her original order, Uthmeier sent a memo to state and local law enforcement officers telling them to refrain from enforcing the law, even though he disagreed with the injunction. But five days later, he sent a memo saying the judge was legally wrong and that he couldn’t prevent police officers and deputies from enforcing the law.
“Again, he may well be right that the district court’s order is impermissibly broad,” the appellate judges said of Uthmeier. “But that does not warrant what seems to have been at least a veiled threat not to obey it.”
Alabama
Lawyer: It may be ‘very difficult’ to find fair jury for man accused of killing 18 people
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — The Alabama man accused of killing 18 people in 2023 and 2024, including two mass shootings, will go to trial in April next year, a judge ruled Tuesday.
But his attorneys have raised concerns about whether it will be possible to select impartial jurors from a city still reeling from record levels of violence last year.
Damien McDaniel, 22, faces murder charges related to 18 deaths in Birmingham, Alabama — including eight people killed at two separate mass shootings in July and September. Jefferson County District Judge Shanta Owens also ruled that prosecutors could pursue the death penalty against McDaniel under Alabama law.
Birmingham had one of the deadliest years on record in 2024 with 151 homicides, according to records compiled by AL.com. Birmingham police officers have accused McDaniel and one other man of committing over 30% of those murders, casting the 22-year old as a central force in the widespread violence that touched hundreds of lives across the city.
McDaniel, who is being held in state prison, maintains his innocence, according to his attorneys. They say that they haven’t seen any evidence yet.
John Robbins, one of the lawyers representing McDaniel, said after the hearing that “the obvious concern is that we can’t get a jury that doesn’t know a whole lot about this case.”
“At some point we will have to discuss whether we can have a fair trial in this county,” Robbins said. He added that his legal team was polling potential jurors across the county.
Owens said she understood Robbins’ concerns about finding jurors without a significant connection to McDaniel’s alleged victims, but she cautioned that it might be impossible to weed out anyone familiar with the accusations against McDaniel, given the impact the shootings had on the city.
“I just don’t want to get to the point where we’re emptying the city of Birmingham” looking for jurors who have no knowledge of the case or connection to victims, Owens said.
Owens clarified that it would be OK to have jurors who knew some victims tangentially, as long as they could be impartial and didn’t know victims “in depth” or “at length.”
A large crowd filled almost all available space in the courtroom on Tuesday. Some wore T-shirts emblazoned with the names and faces of McDaniel’s alleged victims. Some shed tears after the hearing.
Before the start of the hearing McDaniel’s mother and a family member of one of the victims got into an argument, and they were forced to exit the courtroom by court deputies. McDaniel appeared in court wearing a red and pink striped jumpsuit, chained at his wrists and ankles.
Robbins said after the hearing that McDaniel’s mother has received death threats.
“Law enforcement knows about it. They don’t do anything,” Robbins said, adding that he was grateful that law enforcement intervened in the courtroom.
In April, McDaniel will first be tried for the charges related to a mass shooting outside of a nightclub where four people were fatally shot.
Massachusetts
Judge says government can’t limit passport sex markers for many transgender, nonbinary people
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from limiting passport sex markers for many transgender and nonbinary Americans.
Tuesday’s ruling from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick means that transgender or nonbinary people who are without a passport or need to apply for a new one can request a male, female or “X” identification marker rather than being limited to the marker that matches the gender assigned at birth.
In an executive order signed in January, the president used a narrow definition of the sexes instead of a broader conception of gender. The order said a person is male or female and rejected the idea that someone can transition from the sex assigned at birth to another gender.
Kobick first issued a preliminary injunction against the policy last month, but that ruling applied only to six people who joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit over the passport policy.
In Tuesday’s ruling she agreed to expand the injunction to include transgender or nonbinary people who are currently without a valid passport, those whose passport is expiring within a year, and those who need to apply for a passport because theirs was lost or stolen or because they need to change their name or sex designation.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The government failed to show that blocking its policy would cause it any constitutional injury, Kobick wrote, or harm the executive branch’s relations with other countries.
The transgender and nonbinary people covered by the preliminary injunction, meanwhile, have shown that the passport policy violates their constitutional rights to equal protection, Kobick said.
“Even assuming a preliminary injunction inflicts some constitutional harm on the Executive Branch, such harm is the consequence of the State Department’s adoption of a Passport Policy that likely violates the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans,” Kobick wrote.
Kobick, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, sided with the ACLU’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which stays the action while the lawsuit plays out.
“The Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny,” Kobick wrote in the preliminary injunction issued earlier this year. “That standard requires the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest. The government has failed to meet this standard.”
In its lawsuit, the ACLU described how one woman had her passport returned with a male designation while others are too scared to submit their passports because they fear their applications might be suspended and their passports held by the State Department.
Another mailed in their passport Jan. 9 and requested to change their name and their sex designation from male to female. That person was still waiting for their passport, the ACLU said in the lawsuit, and feared missing a family wedding and a botany conference this year.
In response to the lawsuit, the Trump administration argued that the passport policy change “does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution.” It also contended that the president has broad discretion in setting passport policy and that plaintiffs would not be harmed since they are still free to travel abroad.
Officer won’t be charged in shooting death of teen who was holding a gun during a chase
CINCINNATI (AP) — A Cincinnati police officer will not be charged in the shooting death of an 18-year-old who was holding a gun and running from police who were responding to a call about a stolen car, a prosecutor said Tuesday.
A day after the shooting, the teen’s father struck and killed a county deputy with his car in what authorities have said was an intentional act. The father, who had watched body camera footage of the shooting just hours before the crash, has pleaded not guilty to aggravated murder in the deputy’s death.
Hamilton County Prosecutor Connie Pillich said a review of the May 1 shooting death of Ryan Hinton found that the officer was “legally justified in his use of force.”
Hinton had a fully loaded gun and pointed it at officers when they confronted him, Pillich said.
The officer who fired told investigators that Hinton pointed the gun at him during a foot chase, Pillich said. Police released photos of a semiautomatic handgun that they said Hinton was carrying and another gun that was found in the car.
One officer could be heard in body camera video released by police saying “he’s got a gun” before several shots were fired as Hinton was running behind an apartment complex.
While blurred images released after the shooting did not clearly show Hinton pointing a gun, Cincinnati Police Chief Teresa Theetge said the officer told investigators that Hinton had the gun in front of him and pointed at the officer. The officer said he feared for his life, the chief said.
Police and the prosecutor did not release the name of the officer.
An attorney representing Hinton’s family said they disagreed with the prosecutor’s findings and plan to file a lawsuit.
Meanwhile, authorities have accused Hinton’s father, Rodney Hinton Jr., 38, of running down a deputy who was not involved in his son’s shooting.
Deputy Larry Ray Henderson Jr. was directing traffic near the University of Cincinnati when he was hit by a car that drove into an intersection, police said.
Henderson was struck a few hours after Rodney Hinton Jr. and other family members watched police body camera footage showing the officer fatally shoot his son. Rodney Hinton Jr.’s attorney has said he is not guilty by reason of insanity.
Florida
Judge finds attorney general in contempt over immigration law
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday found Florida’s attorney general to be in civil contempt over her ruling that put on hold a new state law making it a misdemeanor for people living in the U.S. illegally to enter the state.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams said that Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier was unconvincing in his arguments that he didn’t flout her injunction putting the law on hold. Uthmeier had sent out a memo saying the judge was legally wrong and that he couldn’t prevent police officers and deputies from enforcing the law. A contempt hearing was held two weeks ago in Miami.
“Litigants cannot change the plain meaning of words as it suits them, especially when conveying a court’s clear and unambiguous order,” Williams wrote. “Fidelity to the rule of law can have no other meaning.”
For sanctions, the judge ordered Uthmeier to file biweekly reports to her about whether any arrests, detentions or law enforcement actions have been made under the law, which is being challenged in court by immigrant rights groups.
In a social media post, Uthmeier said, “If being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump’s agenda on illegal immigration, so be it.”
A day ago, the judge denied a request by Uthmeier to put on hold her earlier injunction while it is being appealed. The injunction barred law enforcement from enforcing the immigration law, as Williams said it’s likely the law will be found unconstitutional.
Williams’ decision followed an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling earlier this month denying a similar request from Uthmeier. The appellate judges said the case was far from being resolved.
“But we’re mindful that the burden in this posture is for the Attorney General to make a ‘strong showing’ that he is likely to succeed on the merits. And we do not think he tips the balance in his favor,” the judges wrote, noting Uthmeier’s “seemingly defiant posture” regarding Williams’ earlier order.
After Williams issued her original order, Uthmeier sent a memo to state and local law enforcement officers telling them to refrain from enforcing the law, even though he disagreed with the injunction. But five days later, he sent a memo saying the judge was legally wrong and that he couldn’t prevent police officers and deputies from enforcing the law.
“Again, he may well be right that the district court’s order is impermissibly broad,” the appellate judges said of Uthmeier. “But that does not warrant what seems to have been at least a veiled threat not to obey it.”
Alabama
Lawyer: It may be ‘very difficult’ to find fair jury for man accused of killing 18 people
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — The Alabama man accused of killing 18 people in 2023 and 2024, including two mass shootings, will go to trial in April next year, a judge ruled Tuesday.
But his attorneys have raised concerns about whether it will be possible to select impartial jurors from a city still reeling from record levels of violence last year.
Damien McDaniel, 22, faces murder charges related to 18 deaths in Birmingham, Alabama — including eight people killed at two separate mass shootings in July and September. Jefferson County District Judge Shanta Owens also ruled that prosecutors could pursue the death penalty against McDaniel under Alabama law.
Birmingham had one of the deadliest years on record in 2024 with 151 homicides, according to records compiled by AL.com. Birmingham police officers have accused McDaniel and one other man of committing over 30% of those murders, casting the 22-year old as a central force in the widespread violence that touched hundreds of lives across the city.
McDaniel, who is being held in state prison, maintains his innocence, according to his attorneys. They say that they haven’t seen any evidence yet.
John Robbins, one of the lawyers representing McDaniel, said after the hearing that “the obvious concern is that we can’t get a jury that doesn’t know a whole lot about this case.”
“At some point we will have to discuss whether we can have a fair trial in this county,” Robbins said. He added that his legal team was polling potential jurors across the county.
Owens said she understood Robbins’ concerns about finding jurors without a significant connection to McDaniel’s alleged victims, but she cautioned that it might be impossible to weed out anyone familiar with the accusations against McDaniel, given the impact the shootings had on the city.
“I just don’t want to get to the point where we’re emptying the city of Birmingham” looking for jurors who have no knowledge of the case or connection to victims, Owens said.
Owens clarified that it would be OK to have jurors who knew some victims tangentially, as long as they could be impartial and didn’t know victims “in depth” or “at length.”
A large crowd filled almost all available space in the courtroom on Tuesday. Some wore T-shirts emblazoned with the names and faces of McDaniel’s alleged victims. Some shed tears after the hearing.
Before the start of the hearing McDaniel’s mother and a family member of one of the victims got into an argument, and they were forced to exit the courtroom by court deputies. McDaniel appeared in court wearing a red and pink striped jumpsuit, chained at his wrists and ankles.
Robbins said after the hearing that McDaniel’s mother has received death threats.
“Law enforcement knows about it. They don’t do anything,” Robbins said, adding that he was grateful that law enforcement intervened in the courtroom.
In April, McDaniel will first be tried for the charges related to a mass shooting outside of a nightclub where four people were fatally shot.
Massachusetts
Judge says government can’t limit passport sex markers for many transgender, nonbinary people
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from limiting passport sex markers for many transgender and nonbinary Americans.
Tuesday’s ruling from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick means that transgender or nonbinary people who are without a passport or need to apply for a new one can request a male, female or “X” identification marker rather than being limited to the marker that matches the gender assigned at birth.
In an executive order signed in January, the president used a narrow definition of the sexes instead of a broader conception of gender. The order said a person is male or female and rejected the idea that someone can transition from the sex assigned at birth to another gender.
Kobick first issued a preliminary injunction against the policy last month, but that ruling applied only to six people who joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit over the passport policy.
In Tuesday’s ruling she agreed to expand the injunction to include transgender or nonbinary people who are currently without a valid passport, those whose passport is expiring within a year, and those who need to apply for a passport because theirs was lost or stolen or because they need to change their name or sex designation.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The government failed to show that blocking its policy would cause it any constitutional injury, Kobick wrote, or harm the executive branch’s relations with other countries.
The transgender and nonbinary people covered by the preliminary injunction, meanwhile, have shown that the passport policy violates their constitutional rights to equal protection, Kobick said.
“Even assuming a preliminary injunction inflicts some constitutional harm on the Executive Branch, such harm is the consequence of the State Department’s adoption of a Passport Policy that likely violates the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans,” Kobick wrote.
Kobick, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, sided with the ACLU’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which stays the action while the lawsuit plays out.
“The Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny,” Kobick wrote in the preliminary injunction issued earlier this year. “That standard requires the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest. The government has failed to meet this standard.”
In its lawsuit, the ACLU described how one woman had her passport returned with a male designation while others are too scared to submit their passports because they fear their applications might be suspended and their passports held by the State Department.
Another mailed in their passport Jan. 9 and requested to change their name and their sex designation from male to female. That person was still waiting for their passport, the ACLU said in the lawsuit, and feared missing a family wedding and a botany conference this year.
In response to the lawsuit, the Trump administration argued that the passport policy change “does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution.” It also contended that the president has broad discretion in setting passport policy and that plaintiffs would not be harmed since they are still free to travel abroad.
