A federal judge heard from attorneys Monday about the treatment of Salah Sarsour, the Palestinian president of Milwaukee’s Islamic Society and a legal U.S. permanent resident who is being held in an Indiana immigration detention facility.

Sarsour’s lawyers say that since arriving at the Clay County Detention Center in Brazil, Indiana, following his arrest by federal immigration agents in March Sarsour has lost 30 pounds, is not receiving appropriate care for his type 2 diabetes, and has been denied the ability to practice his religion. Separate from Sarsour’s immigration proceedings, Sarsour’s attorneys pushed in federal court for his release, arguing that his treatment at the detention center amounted to a First Amendment violation. 

Luna Droubi, an attorney who represents Sarsour, said that the judge listened closely and asked questions about the 53-year-old business owner, activist and grandfather’s experiences. The judge “addressed and directed the facility to take a look at Salah Sarsour’s medical guidance, and I do think he has real concerns about his treatment,” said Droubi, adding that Sarsour “really has been tormented for exercising his religious beliefs.” 

Initially, Droubi explained, “he wasn’t able to pray five times a day; they would disrupt his prayers at certain hours and tell him to stop doing it.” Sarsour’s requests for Halal meals, foods which are considered permissible in Islam, have been denied, and obtaining a makeshift prayer towel proved challenging as well. When he asked for food that would help him maintain balanced blood sugar levels because of his diabetes, Sarsour was offered pork rinds by detention facility staff according to his attorneys, in violation of his religious dietary requirements.

“It’s been a very difficult time for him,” Droubi told the Examiner. “He’s the president of the largest Islamic Center in Milwaukee. … He is a type 2 diabetic and he has very clear medical instructions that he requires daily glucose testing. At today’s hearing, they represented that they had started daily glucose testing and then somebody at the facility was instructed that they only need to do it once a month.” That goes directly against medical guidance, she added, since glucose levels can drop and rise on a daily basis, “and that can be incredibly dangerous.” 

At one point, Droubi said, Sarsour experienced severe abdominal pain and then was told “there’s nothing we can do for it. There’s no medical professional here. You’re going to have to wait until morning.” She stressed that “he couldn’t even stand up, and it’s only been two months. So he’s really, really struggled.”

Since Jan. 1 of this year, there have been 18 deaths of people detained in immigration detention facilities nationwide. This has outpaced the deaths reported last year –  the highest in two decades. This comes as Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced that it will stop reporting the deaths of people who’ve been recently released by detention, the AP reported.

Sarsour’s attorneys argued that there are numerous reasons why Sarsour needs to be immediately released, and that it’s within the federal court’s authority to do so. Droubi said that Sarsour is being held “because of his speech and associations,” and that the arrest was purely punitive for that speech.

Sarsour grew up in the West Bank and became an outspoken critic of the Israeli government and a supporter of Palestinian rights and freedoms as an adult. That activism continued after the militant arm of Hamas attacked Israel in late 2023, killing 1,200 people, followed by a large-scale Israeli assault on Palestinians living in Gaza which has killed at least 75,000 people while displacing thousands more. 

The Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly called Sarsour a “terrorist” who was convicted of throwing Molotov cocktails into the homes of Israeli forces.

“This was an Israeli military kangaroo court,” Othman Atta, executive director of Milwaukee’s Islamic Society, said of Sarsour’s conviction during a community gathering and press conference held in early April after Sarsour’s arrest. “Human rights groups will tell you that these claims are coerced under torture, under interrogation. So absolutely, that’s not true.” At the gathering Atta also said that Sarsour spent two years in Israeli detention as a teenager. “He would talk to us many times how for 80 straight days, he was interrogated, and brutalized, and tortured while he was in Israeli military custody.”

These experiences are widely reported by detained Palestinians. In 2024, United Nations experts found that due process rights for Palestinians in the West Bank, where Sarsour grew up and was detained, had been violated by Israeli authorities for the past 60 years. 

“He is also an illegal alien that lied on his green card application to fraudulently gain legal status in the U.S. under the Clinton Administration,” a DHS spokesperson said in an emailed statement to the Examiner. “Any accusation of discrimination by ICE agents is FALSE. All illegal aliens in ICE custody receive three meals a day and proper medical treatment. Sarsour is a criminal and a terrorist and will remain in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.”

Droubi said that the federal judge is considering the argument for Sarsour’s release. Attorneys representing the government say that the federal court has no jurisdiction over a claim of unlawful detention. 

“He should be home with his family,” Droubi told the Examiner. “He really should.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security will allow states to access federal citizenship data by June 30 and plans to monitor the flow of mail ballots for signs of voter fraud, according to a court document.

Amid a series of lawsuits, President Donald Trump’s administration is now moving to carry out a March 31 executive order restricting voting by mail ahead of the November midterm elections.

Democrats and voting rights advocates oppose the directive as unconstitutional election meddling by Trump and have sued to stop him. The president, who has long attacked mail ballots but votes by mail himself, says the additional rules will fight noncitizen voting, a rare phenomenon.

“No president has the authority to unilaterally rewrite election rules or dictate how states administer their elections,” Marcia Johnson, chief of activation and justice at the League of Women Voters, said in a statement last week. The League of Women Voters filed one of at least five lawsuits challenging the order.

Potential disruptions

The order could carry major consequences for the midterm elections. Any new restrictions on mail ballots would risk disrupting how tens of millions of voters cast their ballots. About 30% of voters cast mail ballots in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

But despite several legal challenges, the order remains in effect. 

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., in late May ruled against a request by Democratic groups to pause the order, finding that it was too soon to weigh in because federal officials hadn’t taken enough action yet. A second judge in Massachusetts held a hearing last week, but didn’t immediately issue a decision.

“The Trump Administration will continue fighting for the safety and security of American elections,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement shortly after the D.C. judge’s decision.

One portion of the order demands the postmaster general enact new restrictions on mailed ballots and not transmit ballots from states that refuse to provide the names of absentee voters. The U.S. Postal Service, despite its status as an independent corporation, has put forward a proposal in line with the order to require states to submit lists of voters before mailing ballots.

Now, Homeland Security is responding to another part of the order that requires the creation of lists of voting-age citizens in every state, which the Trump administration calls “state citizenship lists.” State election officials would receive the lists, which they could compare to their voter rolls in a search for noncitizen voters.

Homeland Security’s plans for the citizenship lists came into focus on June 5, when the U.S. Department of Justice filed a notice in federal court that briefly outlines the administration’s plans. The notice describes a two-part effort by Homeland Security and its subsidiary agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, to comply with the order.

First, Homeland Security will implement a “State Voter Roll Verification” that allows state election officials to submit their voter rolls to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, system. 

SAVE is a powerful computer program that checks names against citizenship information held in a variety of government databases. It can flag registered voters as possible noncitizens, but faces criticism for incorrect identifications.

For the past year, states have already had the option to upload their voter rolls into SAVE. Some Republican-led states, such as Indiana, Texas and Wyoming, have used the system, while Democratic states have declined. It’s unclear how the State Voter Roll Verification would be different, if at all, from states’ current SAVE access. 

Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services didn’t respond to questions from States Newsroom.

Second, the Justice Department notice says Homeland Security will set up a registry for state election officials to securely access “citizenship-related data” from USCIS, the Social Security Administration and the State Department.

According to the notice, the “underlying data would remain in each agency’s respective system.” No other details were provided.

The notice also outlines Homeland Security’s intention to use the lists of voters that states provide to the Postal Service for investigations. It says DHS wants to “integrate” data on those voters “to monitor mail-in and absentee ballot flows, identify anomalies that may suggest voter fraud or misuse, and generate authorized investigative leads.”

California elections

The notice comes as Trump renews his attacks on mail-in voting. Last week he alleged, without evidence, voter fraud in California, which held primary elections last week. California relies heavily on mail ballots and often counts votes at a slow pace — meaning final results sometimes don’t match election night vote totals.

“Do you know why they’re doing that? Because they’re cheating on the election,” Trump said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

While the executive order already faces a slew of lawsuits, the NAACP on June 3 filed a motion in federal court seeking to specifically block the Postal Service’s proposed regulations of mail ballots. The NAACP alleges the regulations violate a 2021 settlement agreement that requires timely delivery of election mail to all voters. 

The Postal Service has until Thursday to respond.

The American Postal Workers Union in a statement on June 5 denounced the executive order, saying the Postal Service serves all Americans. It is “not a tool for politicians” to pick which Americans receive which benefits, the union said.

“The Executive Order is an unconstitutional attack on the millions of Americans who vote by mail,” the union said, “and another front in an ongoing assault on voting rights in the United States of America.”

When her son was a teenager, Connecticut mom Amy Wadsworth said, he was the type of kid parents rarely worry about.

He played sports, cared about his health and stayed away from drugs. In 2018, when he left West Hartford to start his freshman year at American University in Washington, D.C., she expected his biggest challenge would be adjusting to college life.

Instead, she said, he began using cannabis to cope with social anxiety and as a sleep aid.

Within months, Wadsworth’s son was calling home in the middle of the night, terrified and disoriented.

Over the next several years, his behavior became increasingly erratic, he had psychotic episodes and he was eventually diagnosed with severe cannabis use disorder. That’s when a person’s marijuana use becomes difficult to control and begins interfering with daily life.

Now 25, Wadsworth’s son has spent much of the past several years cycling through hospitals and treatment programs across the country.

“It’s definitely changed the trajectory of his life,” Wadsworth said. “It did nothing but harm him, literally harm every facet of his life — every facet, physical, mental, everything.”

States have spent the past several decades debating whether to legalize cannabis. Now, they are debating how intoxicating legal products should be.

A growing body of research suggests that frequent use of high-THC cannabis increases the risk of cannabis use disorder, psychosis and other mental health problems for users, particularly adolescents and young adults. In response, lawmakers in some states this year have moved to impose stricter potency caps, while others have scaled back or rejected such measures amid industry opposition and uncertainty over research findings.

While cannabis flower once commonly contained THC levels in the single digits, many products sold legally today contain 15% to 20% THC or more. Concentrates — such as waxes, oils and shatter — can exceed 80%.

About 15% of Americans ages 12 and older reported using marijuana in the past month in 2024, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. And about 3 in 10 people who use cannabis have cannabis use disorder, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Some public health researchers and addiction specialists argue that public perceptions of marijuana have not kept pace with the growing availability of high potency products. They say broader legalization efforts — including the federal government’s recent move to reclassify medical marijuana as a less restrictive drug under the Controlled Substances Act — may reinforce the belief that cannabis is harmless.

“Moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III doesn’t help me save lives by decreasing the perception of that risk,” said Dr. Alta DeRoo, the chief medical officer of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, one of the largest nonprofit treatment providers for addiction and mental health. DeRoo also is a board-certified addiction medicine physician and OB-GYN.

Some state efforts to impose potency limits have been stalled by resistance from the cannabis industry and questions about how far governments should go in regulating a legal product.

In Connecticut, lawmakers this year reinstated a 35% THC cap on flower just weeks after voting to eliminate it. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle said they were concerned about the potential public health effects of increasingly potent marijuana products.

At the same time, the legislation moved forward with other cannabis market expansions. Lawmakers removed a 70% THC cap on concentrates, increased the amount of THC allowed in certain cannabis-infused beverages and expanded the market to include products such as topicals, tablets and capsules.

Proposals to cap THC potency have surfaced in statehouses across the country for years. This year, lawmakers in California, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Oregon and South Dakota introduced similar measures, though most did not advance.

Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a law in May that removes the state’s previous 5% THC potency cap starting July 1. The new law will also add a 12,000 mg possession limit for registered medical cannabis patients and allow patients over 21 to vaporize medical marijuana.

‘A perennial debate’

Lawmakers across the country have proposed a range of measures aimed at limiting the potency of cannabis products.

In Washington state, Democratic state Rep. Lauren Davis has spent years trying to place guardrails on high-potency cannabis products. Since 2020, she has introduced at least five bills that would have capped THC levels in concentrates or imposed safeguards, including age restrictions, warning labels and a higher tax rate on products with elevated THC levels.

Most of those measures were thwarted by opposition from the cannabis industry, Davis told Stateline.

Industry groups and cannabis businesses argued that Washington’s existing regulations already protected consumers and kept cannabis away from minors. Opponents also warned that limiting high-THC products would drive consumers to the illicit market, hurting legal businesses and exposing users to unregulated, possibly contaminated products.

“(The industry) then went on to basically rain down all fire and brimstone and crush every bill that I’ve ever attempted in this area,” Davis said.

The only proposal to become law was a 2024 measure that requires retailers to warn customers about the association between high-potency THC products and psychotic disorders.

Washington state does not currently impose THC caps on flower or concentrates, but it does set limits on edibles and beverages.

Nearly all states have some form of medical-only or hybrid medical and recreational cannabis program, but just eight states, Connecticut, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, have potency caps on some products, including flower, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Potency limits on edibles are far more common.

“This is a perennial debate that comes up in Vermont and elsewhere around higher potency products,” said James Pepper, who chairs the Vermont Cannabis Control Board, the agency that regulates the state’s market.

“I feel like the concerns are certainly real,” he added.

In Oklahoma, a recent incident in which a 4-year-old boy was hospitalized and remained unconscious for more than a day after his parents said he ingested a 1,000 mg edible found at a playground has added to growing debate over high-potency cannabis products in the state.

“We know that some of our medical patients truly do need higher potency products, but do we really need a 2,000 milligram gummy available for anyone with a patient license to purchase in an Oklahoma dispensary?” said Adria Berry, the executive director of the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority, which oversees the state’s medical market.

Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt also signed a measure into law last month that will take effect in November, adding stricter packaging and labeling requirements, including restrictions intended to prevent products from resembling candy or appealing to children.

While some industry experts acknowledge the potential harms, they say the focus should be on consumer education and clear information about potency and effects, rather than new restrictions.

An official with Trulieve, a cannabis company that operates dispensaries in eight states, told Stateline that its products are independently tested and that potency information is available for customers to review and ask questions about, including a product’s effects.

“We believe that that piece of information is critical for a consumer to make an educated decision on what type and what potency of product they are looking to consume,” said Lauren Niehaus, Trulieve’s executive director of government relations.

Some advocacy and trade groups, such as the National Cannabis Industry Association and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), argue that policymakers should steer consumers into tightly regulated legal markets rather than imposing blanket THC caps that could push some users back to illicit sellers. They say that accurate labeling, child-resistant packaging and public education campaigns are the best strategies to protect public health and prevent youth access.

“It’s undoubtedly safer and better for public health outcomes to regulate these products,” said Adam Rosenberg, who chairs the board of the National Cannabis Industry Association.

Paul Armentano, NORML’s deputy director, said potency caps oversimplify the risks of cannabis products and fail to account for how consumers actually use them. Consumers view ultra-potent products as a novelty, he said, and ultimately gravitate toward lower-potency options.

“When you look at state-tracked sales in legal states, cannabis flower or botanical cannabis still outsells every other product, and I would dare say it’s because that is the most moderate to low potency product available on the shelf, and that’s what most people want,” Armentano said.

Armentano also argued that some of the strongest calls for THC limits come from opponents of legalization, who see potency restrictions as a way to gradually roll back access to legal cannabis.

What the research says

A study published earlier this year in JAMA Health Forum found that adolescents who use cannabis, including products with higher potencies, had a significantly increased risk of developing psychotic and bipolar disorders, along with higher risks of depression and anxiety. The research followed about 463,000 adolescents in Northern California between ages 13 and 17 and tracked outcomes into early adulthood. The study did not, however examine whether the use of higher-potency products is more likely to cause psychotic and bipolar disorders.

But other research has linked frequent use of high-potency cannabis to a greater risk of psychosis and psychotic disorders, particularly among heavy users. Several studies have found a dose-response relationship, meaning the risk tends to rise as THC concentration and frequency of use increase. Experts caution, however, that many studies cannot definitively prove that cannabis causes psychosis and that individual risk varies widely.

Other research suggests the risk of developing psychosis may be higher for adolescents and young adults, whose brains are still developing, as well as people with existing mental health conditions or a family history of psychotic disorders.

“I’ve seen patients come through our facilities where they haven’t done any other drugs other than just high-potency marijuana, and their psychosis is remarkable,” said DeRoo, of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation. “They don’t have a grasp of reality. They come in seeing things, they come in believing things, alternate realities.”

John Puls, a psychotherapist and addiction specialist in Florida, has seen similar patterns in his practice at Full Life Comprehensive Care, particularly among adolescents and young adults using high-potency products.

He said families often don’t believe cannabis alone could be driving such dramatic changes. Beyond psychosis, he added, cannabis can chip away at more ordinary parts of life: Motivation drops, executive functioning suffers, patients miss appointments or forget obligations, and short‑term memory and relationships start to fray.

Some medical and industry experts say that cannabis can provide meaningful relief for some people, including those undergoing cancer treatment or who have chronic pain. But there is very little consensus on appropriate medical uses, dosing and long-term effects, particularly as products vary widely in potency.

“If there’s no standardized testing of products, or if there’s no enforcement of potency limits, then we might be putting people at more risk,” said Dr. Smita Das, an adult addiction psychiatrist and a clinical professor at Stanford University School of Medicine.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump will nominate acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, his former personal lawyer, to fill the top role at the Department of Justice on a permanent basis, he said Wednesday night.

Trump revealed Blanche as his choice at an outdoor event at the White House, saying “we are going to make him permanent attorney general” and adding that he expects Blanche’s nomination process to “go very quickly.”

Blanche has been leading the department in an acting capacity since former Attorney General Pam Bondi exited the administration in early April.

Blanche, of Florida, will almost certainly have that state’s two Republican senators, Rick Scott and Ashley Moody, supporting his nomination.

The GOP-led Senate confirmed Blanche as deputy attorney general in early March 2025 on a party-line vote.

Blanche represented Trump in 2023 and 2024 during a New York state hush money case. A jury convicted Trump two years ago on 34 first-degree felony counts of falsifying business records.

The close tie between the president and his pick for attorney general is a major reason Democrats will oppose the nomination, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday.

“Trump picked Blanche because he’s loyal to the president alone – not the Constitution, not the rule of law, and certainly not the American people, and not to the values that this country has had for 250 years,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “For years, Blanche has been Trump’s personal lawyer and attack dog, and that didn’t stop when Blanche joined the department.”

Anti-weaponization fund

Blanche has taken heat in recent weeks, including from Republicans, for the department’s settlement in Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against his own IRS.

Trump dropped the suit in exchange for the department establishing a nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund for persons Blanche described on May 18 as “victims of lawfare.” The settlement revealed that the fund would be governed by five commissioners hand-chosen by Blanche, with only one involving consultation from congressional leadership.

Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle quickly objected to the proposal, noting the possibility that people convicted — then pardoned by Trump — of assaulting police during the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol could receive reparations from the fund.

When pressed at a May 27 Senate hearing on whether violent Jan. 6 defendants who were pardoned could reap taxpayer dollars from the fund, Blanche replied, “Anybody can apply.

“The commission will set rules, I’m sure,” he continued. “That’s not for me to set, that’s for the commissioners, and whether an individual, an Oath Keeper, as you just mentioned, applies for compensation, anybody in this country can apply.”

Several lawsuits quickly challenged the legality of the fund, including one from former police officers who deployed to the Capitol on Jan.6, and another from legal advocates who argued the fund would be illegally shielded from transparency laws.

After intense pressure, Blanche testified to a House Appropriations subcommittee Tuesday that the administration was “not moving forward with the fund, period.”

The concession cleared the way for reluctant Senate Republicans to support a roughly $70 billion immigration enforcement package. Senate Democrats plan to stall the bill on the floor Thursday with a marathon of amendments, including proposals to curtail or outright ban such funds going forward.

The administration is still facing questions from lawmakers about a provision in Trump’s IRS settlement that absolves him, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization, from tax audits. 

Epstein files

Blanche has also come under scrutiny for the DOJ’s handling of the release of files related to the deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The botched release last year, when Bondi headed the department, initially exposed names of sexual abuse victims.

Democrats claimed Bondi told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee during a closed-door interview last week that Blanche oversaw the legally mandated release of the files and made the decision to not investigate any possible leads.

Bondi refuted the claim on social media following the interview.

The family of Donald Maier settled a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Department of Corrections for $3.75 million, the plaintiffs’ lawyer announced Thursday.

In 2024, Maier died at the troubled Waupun Correctional Institution of malnutrition and dehydration. Former Waupun warden Randall Hepp and six members of his staff were charged in Maier’s death. Maier had been in the restrictive housing unit, also referred to as solitary confinement. His death was ruled a homicide. 

“It wasn’t just Don Maier’s death that was a horrific tragedy,” Jeff Scott Olson, attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a press release emailed to the Wisconsin Examiner. “It was the last few days of his life, when his grip on reality drained away to the point that he was unable to communicate his needs, and his life became a living hell.”

Review of camera footage and medical records showed that security staff told a nurse of a concern about Maier not eating food for a couple of days, drinking sewage water and playing in the toilet, and she did not follow the procedure of a hunger strike, according to a criminal complaint filed in 2024. 

“Over the course of those days, dozens of people whose job it was to care for Don Maier walked by his cell, and not one of them so much as opened the door to his cell to check on him as he was lying unresponsive on the floor,” Olson said.

The nurse, Jessica Hosfelt, was charged with neglecting an incarcerated person and could receive up to three and a half years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000. A telephone scheduling conference in her case is scheduled for July 2. 

Charges in the case against two Waupun employees were dropped, and three others pleaded no contest to lesser charges. Hepp, the former warden, also pleaded no contest and was fined $500. 

According to the criminal complaint, Maier’s inability to speak coherently to articulate his medical needs was likely a factor in why he didn’t get needed medical and psychological intervention. 

He either “refused or was not provided medication for any of his known medical and psychological issues” during his time in solitary confinement — except for one instance when, the complaint states, it’s not known whether he actually took the medication he was given. 

Olson blames Act 10 for staffing problems

The Maier family carried out “extensive investigation” through their lawyers, said Olson, who cast blame on Act 10, passed in 2011 under then-Gov. Scott Walker. The law removed most collective bargaining and union rights from most Wisconsin public employees, including correctional employees. 

Olson said investigation into what went wrong at the prison showed that  problems of understaffing and low staff morale in the Wisconsin prison system were directly linked to the changes implemented by Act 10.

 Olson blamed inaction by the state Legislature in the 15 years since the law took effect for the deterioration of the correctional system’s physical facilities and working conditions. A “very predictable effect” has been that even as more people are hired to work in the prisons, it’s been impossible to attract enough applicants, he said.

“This has hurt both prison inmates and prison employees, and without serious reform at the legislative level to take the pressure off, tragedies like the death of Don Maier will continue to be inevitable,” Olson said. 

Across the department’s adult prisons, the DOC’s most recent report shows a vacancy rate of 14.1% for correctional officers and sergeants. That rate is much higher in some facilities — for example, it’s 26.5% at the Waupun prison and 40.8% at Green Bay Correctional Institution — despite pay raises that took effect in October 2023.

Department of Corrections Secretary Jared Hoy told WBAY last month that while the department tries to avoid forced overtime, it hasn’t eliminated the practice entirely. 

“We have a lot of protections in place for folks so they’re not ordered [to work overtime] too much, and we try to observe those as much as we can, we try to observe seniority and things like that,” Hoy said. “But yeah, there is forced overtime that will happen.”

Olson calls for reform 

Olson called the death “completely preventable” and said it highlights “the urgent need for prison reform, a focus on humane and respectful treatment for all residents of Wisconsin’s correctional facilities, and accountability within the corrections system.” 

The release said the family hopes the case will lead to better treatment of people in prison “so that obvious signs of distress are no longer ignored and that ongoing reforms will be put into place by the State of Wisconsin.”  

In February, a judge stayed proceedings in the family’s lawsuit at the request of the family and the DOC while they engaged in mediation, court records show. That mediation ultimately led to the settlement announced Thursday. 

Under the settlement agreement that Olson furnished, the state will pay $3.75 million, $2 million of that by June 30 and the remaining $1.75 million by July 31. All claims in the case will be dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be reopened.

The Department of Corrections did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

In Olson’s press release, Maier’s family expressed appreciation to the Dodge County Sheriff’s Office for an “extremely thorough and detailed” investigation into the causes of his death. Asked for comment on the release, Dodge County Sheriff Dale Schmidt responded over email. 

 “I think I will decline [a] statement and let their statement about us stand as is, given this was civil litigation and I’m not sure if there are still other pending litigations,” Schmidt said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Controversy over Flock license plate reading cameras has rippled across Wisconsin, causing people to fill public hearings as some regions remove the cameras, and others overhaul auditing and oversight. Activists, elected officials and police departments are navigating disagreements over privacy, safety, freedom and the facts about the surveillance network.  

Communities including Dane County, Verona, Monona, Fitchburg, Appleton, Oshkosh and Sturgeon Bay are dropping contracts with the multi-billion company Flock Safety because of heightened awareness and public anxiety over surveillance. 

Officers and deputies from three different agencies and three separate counties stand accused of misusing Flock cameras, which compile images of vehicles and their license plates into a database which can be searched by police. When the Examiner reviewed five months of Flock data last year, it contained many thousands of searches conducted by 221 Wisconsin law enforcement agencies.

All three officers are accused of tracking their romantic partners, with officers Josue Ayala of Milwaukee and Cristian Morales of Menasha facing charges for which they have upcoming court appearances. Ayala is scheduled for sentencing in June and Morales has a jury trial in July. Kenosha County Deputy Frank McGrath was not charged for misconduct over his use of Flock to track another deputy he was dating and a John Doe petition seeking charges in the case has been sealed by a judge, according to court records.

“It’s powerful technology,” Heba Mohammad, an organizer with Milwaukee4Palestine — one of the local groups pushing against Flock cameras — told the Examiner.  

Milwaukee4Palestine has focused on police surveillance as cameras, automatic license plate readers like Flock, and facial recognition technology and drones came to Milwaukee. “As Palestinians, we know what that is a signal of,” said Mohammad, pointing out that similar surveillance tested on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank has been adopted by U.S. law enforcement agencies. “The road to fascism is paved with well-intentioned surveillance technology.”

Milwaukee4Palestine organized to oppose facial recognition technology and then Flock. “We know this is what is next,” said Mohammad. “We’ve seen how surveillance can be used to oppress people.”

Although MPD stands by its use of Flock, the department has also been forced to revamp its auditing procedures. Over the last couple of months, the department has limited the number of officers who have access to Flock. James Lewis, risk manager for MPD, told the Wisconsin Examiner that access was restricted to an “as needed basis,” and that requests need to go through the chain of command, creating more of a paper trail when Flock is used. 

While some units or bureaus investigating serious crimes had clearer needs for Flock, “in patrol, we wanted to make sure that the officers who had it really had the need to have this software,” said Lewis. MPD is also using audit data to flag “outlier” data that indicate questionable Flock uses, such as an officer searching the same vehicle multiple times over a short period, or not attaching case numbers to searches. MPD shares its Flock network with state partners, but not with federal agencies. 

Nevertheless, community members have expressed a lack of confidence and trust in MPD surveillance, especially after the passage of Act 12, which stripped some of the Fire and Police Commission’s oversight powers in exchange for allowing Milwaukee to adopt a sales tax. 

“We are of the position that the risks far outweigh the benefits of this technology and again, particularly with a police force like the Milwaukee Police Department that has been granted a lot of impunity through Act 12 [and has] basically no accountability,” said Mohammad. “And they are demonstrating time and time again that they don’t care what the community thinks.”

Lewis said that the department is trying to nail down exactly how Flock affects the community. “I think a lot of what we’ve seen through public comment, through the commissioners’ comments, through news media coverage for this is, ‘Hey this is this big data surveillance network and it’s got a lot of these pitfalls in it,” said Lewis. “But I think the other piece of it that we’re really trying to get our hands on is how is this making police work more efficient? Is it driving public safety outcomes? Are we getting what we want out of it and through audit, we’re trying to tell those stories as well.” 

Lewis said MPD is working on answering some of those questions, especially the question of whether there is a return on investment in terms of public safety. “If there is outlier data generated, I want to know not just compliance or not, but also what did the city get out of this? Is it a safer place because of this?” Lewis said that MPD has chosen to overhaul its auditing practices on its own in a tailor-made fashion, rather than waiting on Flock Safety to develop a fix. 

The department highlighted 24 different situations where Flock was used, including felony firearms investigations, parole violations, narcotics trafficking, homicide, material witnesses needed at criminal trials, stolen vehicles, overdose death investigations, sexual assault, shootings and armed robberies. In one of the examples involving theft, MPD specified in an email that “Flock was used to develop patterns of movement in the suspect vehicle” to determine whether it was related to other thefts. 

Balancing tracking, privacy, and public safety

The extent to which Flock can track and surveil people has been a source of tension at public meetings. In December, Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita Ball and Chief Deputy Brain Barkow said that calling Flock a form of tracking is a misrepresentation. They argued that although Flock alerts officers that a vehicle has been sighted, they would still need to go to the area of the alert and search for the vehicle. In other words, Flock doesn’t see everything.

But the technology appears to have greater surveillance capabilities than some departments and even Flock itself have described.

The Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department has also said that Flock is “not used for general surveillance, traffic enforcement, or monitoring individuals not connected to an investigation.” However, the agency’s Flock data shows that officers entered “surveillance” and “traffic offense” as reasons for searching the camera network. 

Oshkosh officials voted to continue a Flock contract only to reverse course the next day, saying that they’d been misled by Flock representatives over the camera’s ability to produce heat maps visualizing where a vehicle has been. At a meeting in April, Oshkosh Police Chief Dean Smith told local elected officials that because of that “misrepresentation” he could “I can no longer recommend Flock.”

“I think it depends on how it’s used,” Green Bay Police Chief Chris Davis told the Examiner. “I think if it’s misused, you can misuse this technology in a way that would allow you to track someone.” Yet, Davis feels that Flock can be an asset when used for legitimate criminal investigations. “I think people sometimes misunderstand how the technology works.” 

Davis concedes of Flock use that in some ways, “yeah, that’s kind of tracking someone. But I have a legitimate criminal predicate for doing so.” At the same time, he condemns the use of Flock for personal reasons, like spying on ex-wives or partners. “The government doesn’t get to do that,” said Davis. “That’s unlawful overreach into someone’s life because there’s no legitimate public safety reason for getting access to that data.”

Davis was hired at Green Bay in late 2021, when the city was experiencing a rise in gun violence. After deciding not to adopt gunshot detection tech, the city pivoted to automatic license plate readers. 

“At the time Flock was one of very few, if not the only company that had stationary license plate reader technology,” said Davis. “With gun crimes, the faster you can develop a suspect and make an arrest, the better, because there’s a retaliatory cycle that happens.” The department has been able to locate homicide suspects who fled to other states, hit-and-run suspects, and stolen vehicles using Flock. 

Davis said that “license plate reader technology has been a game changer for all of us. On the other hand, you still have to take people’s privacy concerns seriously.” He stressed that “anytime you’re collecting that much data about people as they just go about their daily business, you have to be really careful with how that’s used.” 

How Flock can be layered with other surveillance technologies also worry community members. In May, officers in Wauwatosa used Flock surveillance and a drone to track a robbery suspect.

The debate reminds Davis of the words of a mentor, that being a police chief is “the great balancing act of municipal government.” He added that, “I think it would be a mistake for us to not take people’s privacy concerns seriously in this conversation.”

As cases of misuse have popped up, the Green Bay Police Department has also tightened its use of Flock. They used their own audit to look for suspicious searches, and didn’t detect any instances of misuse. “We didn’t find any of that in our audit that we did, but it doesn’t hurt to ratchet it down as much as we can,” said Davis. “Because again, I understand, like you’re talking about people’s sensitive information. We have to be responsible with how we use that, and there have to be safeguards in place.” 

The department has also restricted which outside agencies can access its Flock network. While there was an initial belief that “the bigger the network, the more valuable the tool,” Davis said that Green Bay PD has “re-thought that over the last few weeks.” Now only agencies in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, eastern Wisconsin from Green Bay to Milwaukee, and the Chicagoland area (including Racine, Kenosha, and Cook counties along with some Chicago suburbs and a small portion of Indiana around the city of Gary) can search within Green Bay’s network. 

“We figure that makes more sense to have more of a rationale for why we share data,” said Davis. “Because I don’t have control over how those other agencies manage their employees. It’s not that I don’t trust them, but if they want that information then they can call us and they can explain what they’re working on, and we’ll see if we can help them.”

Green Bay PD is also utilizing a drop down menu with pre-designated options for using Flock, rather than allowing officers to type whatever they want. When the Examiner conducted its first analysis of Flock last year, there were several departments which used vague search terms, even just putting a dot or “.” as the reason for searching Flock. When the Examiner brought it to the Waukesha Police Department’s attention, the department said an officer was re-trained and counseled. 

Captain Dan Baumann of the Waukesha PD said in an email statement that since then, the department has “strengthened its oversight of Flock Safety by increasing formal audits from twice per year to monthly.” There are also random audits in addition to the mandatory audit, as well as an AI-powered Flock audit assistance tool to flag suspicious searches. The department’s standard operating procedure has also been adjusted. No further instances of vague labeling have arisen, and no discipline has been issued in connection to use of Flock. 

Baumann said Flock has assisted investigations such as in a vehicle break-in where leads were limited, and using Flock allowed investigators to identify a suspect’s vehicle and connect it to cases in Dane County. Flock was also used to locate someone involved in a shooting, and who pointed a gun during a road rage incident, Baumann said.

Communities waking up to surveillance risks

While it may be encouraging that departments are changing procedures and upping auditing, advocates still have  questions about whether it will  be enough. Jon McCray Jones, policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin, hopes that people “don’t miss the forest for the trees” by focusing solely on Flock, when other companies sell similar technology. 

“I don’t believe that law enforcement are just acting out of good faith with a lot of these regulatory changes and auditing changes to Flock,” McCray Jones told the Examiner. “I believe that it comes from sustained pressure started at the most local level from people understanding and realizing the dangers associated with all these cameras and automated license plate readers, and specifically Flock, who is the worst company out of all of them so far.” 

It all also ties back to a growing mistrust and fear over the federal government. Under President Donald Trump, federal immigration agents have flooded Democratic-led cities across the country, resulting in multiple shootings and deaths in Minnesota earlier this year. The Trump administration has also directed federal agencies to begin investigating left-wing groups it has accused of domestic terrorism. 

Mohammad said that the ICE surges really brought surveillance to the forefront when people began to see “ICE agents scanning people’s faces in different cities, and telling them that we have a database and we can recognize your name. Or pulling people’s license plates and figuring out what their names were so that they could harass them directly by name.” She added, “I think this political moment is also a moral and ethical one.” 

McCray Jones also said the issue of police surveillance has new urgency as communities are “being targeted and their neighbors being disappeared by the federal government.” ICE and other federal agencies have access to Flock either directly, or through assistance from local and state agencies which have contracts with the company. Public officials, under pressure from voters, are “jumping on board,” McCray Jones said, “and they’re feeling courageous and empowered to take on these surveillance systems.”

Public meetings about surveillance technology in Milwaukee are energized, Mohammad said. “I don’t want to say exciting because I think that really betrays the seriousness of the moment,” she said. “But there is that buzz that often happens when that room is full, or there was a time when they had to open the overflow room.” It’s shown Mohammad that “people care about this stuff and that’s why I think that it’s really incredible that even though the FPC doesn’t really have any teeth to its accountability anymore, we as residents are using as many avenues as are open to us to make our voices heard.” 

McCray Jones suggests that people care about Flock because “at its core, it’s one of the easiest surveillance technologies for people to understand.” He believes that people understand that “anyone who drives is impacted by this technology in a way that other surveillance technologies, say like ShotSpotters or Stingray…I think people have a harder time one: knowing how these technologies work but two: viewing themselves as potential victims.” 

He added that in several cases, including in Milwaukee, officers who misused the technology were caught by people using websites like HaveIBeenFlocked, not by the department. “So we don’t know how much these systems are being abused,” he said. “And I think elected officials should use these moments of high, intense scrutiny from the community and in the media, and having anecdotal stories of officers doing this right now, to really be courageous and take the lead to fight for more accountability measures before the public forgets about this story, and forgets about the danger that they are under due to law enforcement’s ability to track where you are at all times.”

Mohammad said that she and her allies are not quitting anytime soon. “We understand our position, we understand the risks here,” she told the Examiner. “And so we’re not going to back down. We do not want our communities to be surveilled. And we believe that public safety comes from investments in other areas, not in police surveillance.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Attorneys squared off in federal court again Wednesday over the fate of former Milwaukee judge Hannah Dugan, who was convicted of obstructing immigration agents when they went to her courtroom to arrest a man last year. What was initially set to be a sentencing hearing for Dugan was postponed, replaced by oral arguments on a motion from Dugan’s attorneys to overturn her conviction.

A  jury found Dugan had obstructed a “proceeding” when she allowed a man living in the U.S. without legal documentation and his attorney to exit out of the courtroom into a non-public hallway. Prosecutors argued her action was to avoid immigration agents who waited in the hallway. 

Dugan’s attorneys argued that a recent appeals court ruling held that federal immigration enforcement actions are not “pending proceedings.” As a result, the attorneys argued Wednesday, improper instructions were given to the jury by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman during the high-profile trial in December. 

Prosecutors countered that the jury instructions were correct, and that the case Dugan’s lawyers cited does not apply to Dugan. 

Adelman now must consider whether to rely on the original guilty verdict, or to overturn the jury’s decision. Adelman denied the defense’s request for a new trial or for Dugan to be acquitted in April, WPR reported. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has scrapped plans to use nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars to pay people who believe they were wrongly prosecuted by the Justice Department — a proposal that halted work on legislation to fund immigration and deportation activities. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified Tuesday before a House committee the DOJ will no longer move forward with those plans shortly after Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said the administration had reversed course. 

That decision could clear the way for the Senate to debate a roughly $70 billion package meant to fund immigration and deportation for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term. 

“I think his statements are going to be very definitive, very clear and create the certainty that I hope all of our members, and House members need as well, in order for us to proceed on the reconciliation bill,” Thune said, referring to Blanche. “But I’m not guaranteeing that happens yet.” 

Blanche confirmed Thune’s statements when he testified before a House Appropriations subcommittee in the afternoon.

“We’re not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche said when pressed by the subcommittee’s top Democrat, Rep. Grace Meng of New York.

“You and Associate Attorney General Woodward signed earlier documents regarding the settlement and this fund, would both of you now sign and release documents reversing the DOJ position on the fund?” Meng asked.

“We’re not moving forward with the fund. I’m not sure what that means to sign documents reversing. There’s nothing to reverse,” Blanche replied.

The DOJ posted on social media this week that it plans to abide by a temporary court ruling that blocked distribution of the funds, but Republican lawmakers said that wasn’t enough to end the impasse it created.

The Justice Department announced the creation of the fund last month as part of a legal settlement between Trump and the IRS over leaked copies of his returns during Trump’s first term. The settlement included provisions that precluded future IRS investigations into Trump and his family.

Senate Republicans weigh in

Thune said GOP senators had a “quite robust conversation” during a closed-door lunch about the DOJ fund and whether to move forward with their immigration and deportation package. 

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven said after that meeting it’s up to GOP leaders to determine whether there are enough votes to move forward with the immigration package. 

“I think the next step is for our whip team to find out where everybody’s at based on the administration’s indication that they’re not going to move forward with the fund,” Hoeven said. 

Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy said there is a “chance” that Republicans could begin a marathon amendment voting session on the immigration bill as soon as Wednesday, if Blanche’s testimony alleviates concerns created by the DOJ fund. 

Montana Sen. Steve Daines, however, said he believes it’s “unlikely” that process begins this week. 

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said earlier in the day, before the lunch, that he wouldn’t accept taxpayer dollars going toward people who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6. 

“To provide restitution to somebody who assaulted a police officer and pled guilty to it. I mean, man, I’ve seen some crazy stuff before, but that’s right up there with crazy,” he said. 

Utah Republican Sen. John Curtis said he needs to know “if it’s dead or nearly dead.” 

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said he wants clarification from the White House about the settlement fund in light of the court’s ruling. 

He added that Republicans are waiting to see if “the court case set aside both the settlement fund and the audits.”

“We need clarification for what it is and isn’t, because the White House already said ‘we agree, we don’t like it, but we agree with the courts,’” Lankford said. “What does that mean?”

Amendment to ban fund

Democrats have also criticized Trump and those in his administration over the fund, vowing to block it in law. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during an afternoon press conference that promises from Trump and administration officials are “worthless.” 

“Trump sued his own government, had his own Justice Department settle the case and is now trying to use taxpayer dollars to pay off his MAGA allies, billionaire buddies and cop-beating insurrectionists,” Schumer said. 

“And let’s be clear, Trump has not killed this slush fund,” he added. “He has not revoked the special tax immunity he gave himself and his family. He has not ended the corruption. He hit a temporary roadblock. That’s it.”

Schumer said the first amendment he would offer during debate on Republicans’ immigration and deportation bill would “ban Trump’s slush fund permanently and revoke his family’s free rein to commit tax fraud forever.”

Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

A Winnebago County judge has sentenced a former prison guard to two years in prison for sexually assaulting an incarcerated man at a state prison in Oshkosh. 

Judge John Jorgensen sentenced Brandon Jeanpierre to two years of prison and five years of supervision in the community on April 9, as well as sex offender registration. 

The victim reported that Jeanpierre fondled him in his cell and performed oral sex on him in a laundry room at the prison, according to records obtained from the Winnebago County District Attorney’s office. 

According to police records, the victim, whom the Examiner is not naming because he is a victim of sexual assault, said that “although he did not verbally tell the CO to stop or physically push him off, this was not consensual and he simply went along with it because he did not know what else to do.” He said he was frozen and that “nothing like this has ever happened to him.”

Describing a conversation with a police officer, the victim told the Examiner that one of the officer’s first questions was, “Why didn’t you do anything to stop it?” That angered him, and he felt that she was shaming him. He spoke positively of his experience with a different officer, a detective who put him at ease. 

“When you’re incarcerated, what they say is law,” the victim said. “When they tell you to do something, you do it. If not, you take the risk of going to solitary confinement, or you never know.”

The victim said he doesn’t know what he could have done to prevent retaliation for not complying, such as Jeanpierre making an accusation against him. He also said he had his girlfriend call the police because he didn’t have the confidence that the Department of Corrections would do the right thing. 

In August, Assistant District Attorney Amanda Nash gave notice that the prosecution planned to introduce DNA evidence to the jury at trial. That didn’t happen, as Jeanpierre took a plea deal instead of going to trial. 

A police report says the laboratory report is confidential, but a summary of the report implies that DNA swabbed from Jeanpierre’s mouth was linked to DNA swabbed from the victim’s penis. It states that the finding in the lab report “provides a very strong support for inclusion” in the case.

By reviewing video surveillance, prison staff saw that the two men were in the laundry room together on three different occasions, according to a police report. The victim told the Examiner that the other two times in the laundry room involved Jeanpierre touching him. 

A member of the prison staff said that they were in the laundry room for a matter of seconds, with the longest period being about 30-40 seconds, according to the prosecution’s criminal complaint. The complaint says the video did not show what happened inside the room. 

The staff person who reported it “noted that it was very unusual” for an officer to go into a laundry room with the lights out for any amount of time with an incarcerated person. 

The Examiner got in touch with the victim, who was released from prison earlier this year, through his attorney, Lonnie Story. Story gave the Examiner a copy of a letter dated April 22, which he said he sent to the state. In it, Story says his client demands $5 million to settle the case without a lawsuit, and offers to negotiate, asking the state to respond within 30 days. Story told the Examiner on May 19 that he has not received a response. 

If the state does not respond “appropriately,” Story told the Examiner, he expects to bring federal civil rights claims based on the sexual abuse, as well as claims concerning the state’s response to his client’s report of sexual abuse.

Story is still in the process of gathering records, but said the case appears to involve both abuse and “substantial questions” about the response after the victim reported it.

Prosecutor asked for ‘strong message’

Jeanpierre wasn’t physically violent, but his ability to punish a prisoner who did not comply with his demands created a serious power imbalance, and  “loss of freedom can be a far more significant threat than physical force,” Nash said. 

She recommended he spend five years imprisoned and five years on supervision in the community, the maximum amount of time for a third-degree sexual assault. 

The victim thought Jeanpierre might be able to do something that would affect his release date, Nash said. She added that, although he was afraid, he came forward and made sure Jeanpierre couldn’t use his position to violate and harm others. 

“To take a position of trust granted to the defendant by the State and use it to sexually assault someone is simply unacceptable,” Nash said. “There needs to be a strong message against this type of conduct.” 

Nash noted that a more severe second-degree charge was read into the case. Jeanpierre wasn’t found guilty of that charge, but Jorgensen was able to consider it when sentencing him for the third-degree charge. 

In a notice to the court in December, Nash said Jeanpierre’s plea deal reflected his willingness to take responsibility for his actions and avoided the need for his victim to go through the stress of testifying at trial. 

Mentally and emotionally, the victim has suffered “immeasurable pain,” he  wrote in a statement to the court. 

“Being taken advantage [of] by someone who was supposed to protect me has caused me to regress to when I was taken advantage of as a child,” he wrote. “The sadness, anger, depression, [sleepless] nights and thoughts of self harm are something I worked years to fight through only to relive it all as a middle aged man. [It] is something that can never be healed.” 

Defense, DOC recommended 90 days in jail 

At the sentencing hearing, defense attorney Scott Ceman said he agreed with the Department of Corrections’ recommendation for Jeanpierre’s sentence. 

When Jeanpierre was found guilty in January, Jorgensen ordered a pre-sentence investigation to help him decide what Jeanpierre’s sentence should be. Jorgensen explained to Jeanpierre that a probation agent was going to prepare a report on him, including his background and the facts of the case. The investigation is confidential and so could not be reviewed by the Examiner.

However, Jorgensen referred to a DOC recommendation during the sentencing hearing, saying that he recognized “the Department of Corrections recommendation of straight probation, 90 days jail.” 

He said he did not think that addressed the seriousness of Jeanpierre’s offense. 

Ceman said he joined the department’s request and asked for “one to two years initial confinement, [and] three to four years extended supervision [in the community] imposed but stayed.” 

In a stayed sentence, a convicted person is placed on probation in the community. If Jorgensen had sided with Ceman, Jeanpierre wouldn’t have had to serve prison time unless he violated the conditions of his probation. 

Ceman asked for Jeanpierre to receive 90 days in jail and three to four years of supervision in the community, as long as he didn’t violate his probation. 

Jorgensen disagreed, saying that if Jeanpierre did not go to prison, “it could send the wrong message to other guards as well as other inmates that they are at the peril of the decisions of the guards, and there will be no ramifications or [no] serious ramifications if they are violated.”

Nash and Ceman also had different views on whether Jeanpierre regretted his actions. Ceman said that Jeanpierre regrets his conduct and has accepted responsibility for it. 

At one point in the sentencing hearing, Nash expressed concern about the pre-sentence investigation’s recommendation. 

According to Nash, the agent who conducted the investigation noted that Jeanpierre was “minimizing or refusing to accept responsibility” but recommended that he receive probation. Nash had concerns that Jeanpierre “views this as something that was OK or something that the victim was a part of.” 

“The victim had no say, he had no control over his own life, and he was sexually assaulted by someone who could take so much from him,” Nash said. 

According to court documents filed April 9, Jeanpierre is planning to seek post-conviction relief. It’s unclear what grounds he plans to use for that challenge. He declined to speak during the sentencing hearing, and did not respond when the Examiner reached out to him in prison through the messaging app GettingOut.

A search of online Wisconsin circuit court records turned up no prior criminal convictions for Jeanpierre. Online DOC records indicate he has been incarcerated at Dodge Correctional Institution since April 21. 

According to a notice from Nash to the court, the prosecution believed the victim was comfortable with the plea deal and the state’s recommendation for sentencing. 

The victim said he didn’t realize it would be “such a minimal sentence” and he wishes Jeanpierre had been given a longer sentence, but he’s trying to be able to move on from the situation. 

Defense arguments 

Jeanpierre’s attorney, Scott Ceman, appeared to question whether the victim had consented to the assault, arguing there wasn’t evidence of Jeanpierre threatening him.  He acknowledged that under the law, an incarcerated person cannot consent to sexual activity with a staff member.

Due to the authority staff members have over incarcerated people, incarcerated people can never truly consent to sexual activity with a staff member even if they agree, a Wisconsin Department of Corrections handbook states. It’s always illegal for a staff member to engage in  sexual activity with an incarcerated person. 

Ceman alleged at the sentencing hearing that as a prosecutor, he was a “strong advocate” for the position that the Department of Corrections does not adequately train its employees in the Prison Rape Elimination Act. (Ceman left the Winnebago County District Attorney’s Office in 2019 citing his dissatisfaction with the wages prosecutors receive). He claimed he asked Jeanpierre what PREA training he received and that it was “really nothing.” 

Ceman alleged this leads to “grooming-type behavior” by incarcerated people who then report they’ve been sexually assaulted and are moved to a better living area within the prison. Jeanpierre’s victim strongly disagrees with Ceman’s implication and told the Examiner that the attorney was engaging in victim blaming in front of the judge. 

He said he was previously incarcerated for 10 years and never accused anyone of sexual assault, and asked why he would do so when he was incarcerated a second time and serving a shorter sentence. The assault took place in October 2024, and he was released from prison earlier this year. Court records show none of his convictions were sexual in nature. 

The Department of Corrections did not respond to requests for comment from the Examiner. Its website states that the agency has zero tolerance for sexual abuse and sexual harassment. Department policy states that the DOC tracks such incidents, identifies core causes and takes corrective actions. 

The agency trains all employees, contractors and volunteers, and provides incarcerated people with a “comprehensive orientation” about their right to be free from sexual abuse, harassment and report-related retaliation, the policy states.

Employees receive training every two years and “refresher information” on non-training years, covering topics such as the dynamics of sexual abuse and sexual harassment behind bars, according to the policy. 

Victim describes multiple assaults 

The victim told the Examiner that prior to the events described in the prosecution’s criminal complaint, Jeanpierre initiated conversation with him, such as asking him about his family.

According to a police report, the victim believed that the first assault took place sometime after 8 p.m. in his cell. He only knew that people called the officer who assaulted him “Pierre.” 

He said that Jeanpierre said “let me see it” before reaching inside his cell from the doorway and grabbing his crotch. He believed Jeanpierre was drinking because his breath smelled like alcohol. 

Jeanpierre told him that Jeanpierre was going to be moving to a “Q unit,” he reported. He said Jeanpierre told him to make a request so he could also be moved there. 

He said he sent a piece of paper to get himself moved to Q unit through what the criminal complaint described as “some sort of inter-prison mail,” and Jeanpierre gave him a small piece of paper with a phone number on it. 

The victim said the piece of paper he had received from Jeanpierre had been thrown out, and that he had rewritten the number on another piece of paper, which he gave to another incarcerated man. A piece of paper found in that man’s room had the personal phone number that the prison had on file for Jeanpierre. 

The victim said he didn’t ask why the officer was asking him to move to that unit, and that, according to the report, he “minds his own business, that he wants to get out on time, doesn’t cause trouble and when a CO [correctional officer] asks him to do something, he just simply does it.” 

Some time between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m., the victim said, Jeanpierre walked by him about two to three times and swiped the back of his hand near his crotch. 

He said that he was working on the janitorial staff that night, and around 10:30 or 11 p.m., Jeanpierre told him to come into the laundry room, where Jeanpierre pulled down the victim’s shorts and put his penis in his mouth without his consent, the victim said.  

He added that after he was assaulted in the laundry room, he went to his room and stayed there for the night. 

The Examiner reviewed records that give insight into the state’s investigation into the sexual assault, including the transcript of an interview on Nov. 22 with Eric Henslin, identified as an administrative captain at Oshkosh Correctional Institution. The victim said he obtained those records by requesting them from the Department of Corrections. 

A camera covers the area of the door that provides access to the laundry room, Henslin said. A window allows the camera to see inside, but the lights were off. After the allegation of sexual assault, a memo went out to direct staff that all lights would remain on in the laundry rooms, he said.

Chad Schepp, the interviewer and a corrections investigator for the DOC, asked Henslin about the victim’s allegation of smelling alcohol on Jeanpierre. Henslin said that if a supervisor doing roll call had any suspicion of Jeanpierre being under the influence of a mind-altering substance, it would be addressed. 

Incarcerated man tipped off Examiner

The Examiner learned about the prosecution of Jeanpierre from Jerry Wheeler, 60, who has spent the majority of his life since 2002 incarcerated and is currently at the Oshkosh Correctional Institution. 

The prosecution’s criminal complaint against Jeanpierre referenced an incarcerated man identified as “JLW.” Online court records from Wheeler’s past offenses state his name as “Jerry L. Wheeler.”  

The victim said he went to Wheeler for advice the morning after the assault, according to the prosecution’s criminal complaint. Wheeler said he didn’t really know the victim and had talked to him a couple of times since he’s been at the Oshkosh prison, the complaint states. 

Wheeler said the victim initially spoke hypothetically about how to report a sexual assault and what to do if he was afraid of retaliation, and that he later admitted he had been assaulted by a correctional officer the previous night, the complaint says. The victim told the Examiner that Wheeler convinced him to report the assault to the police. 

The DOC’s response so far 

Jeanpierre had been with the Department of Corrections for nine months before the incident, according to Ceman’s remarks at the sentencing hearing. A police report dated the day after the assault says that Jeanpierre was being placed on administrative leave pending an investigation. 

Jeanpierre resigned on Nov. 6, 2024, about a week after the assault, according to the records obtained by the victim. He did not respond to the DOC’s request to interview him.

A DOC report supplied by the victim states that the department did not interview the victim because of “the graphic nature of the incident,” concern about re-victimizing him and the fact that police already had a detailed statement. 

When the Examiner brought this up to the victim, he said he could sort of understand that but he wished someone from the DOC had asked him if he wanted to be interviewed. 

The victim said that after the assault, other incarcerated people started to hear about it, and not from him. Incarcerated people told him that correctional officers were talking about it. The victim said he went to security and reported concern for his safety. He was moved to a different institution. 

Henslin, the prison captain interviewed by the DOC, said that the victimwas moved from the Oshkosh prison to Redgranite Correctional Institution because of the allegation of sexual assault, according to records supplied by the victim. He was later transferred between multiple other prisons. 

The victim spoke positively of his experience with an advocate from a sexual assault services provider, but negatively of the DOC’s response to the assault. 

The victim said that “every time I went to a new institution, no one spoke to me… anytime I would ask about the investigation or ask about specific paperwork pertaining to the investigation, no one knew anything.” 

He said he was told staff would have to reach out to someone else and find out. Prison psychological services had to fact-check that he was telling the truth when he brought the assault up to them, he said. 

Department of Corrections policy states that the agency provides a coordinated victim-centered response to reports of sexual abuse and sexual harassment, including providing medical and mental health services to victims as appropriate while investigating all allegations. 

In the victim’s view, the DOC doesn’t have a great track record of being honest or caring for incarcerated people. 

“Victims cannot be silent,” he said. 

How frequently are sexual assaults reported in Wisconsin prisons? 

In 2024, Wisconsin’s adult prisons saw 27 substantiated claims of sexual abuse and 66 substantiated claims of sexual harassment, according to an annual report from the DOC. (2025 data is available on the department’s website, but not at the same level of detail as the 2024 report.)

Most of the substantiated allegations for 2024 involved an incarcerated person abusing or harassing another incarcerated person. Six substantiated allegations involved a staff member, contractor or volunteer abusing or harassing an incarcerated person.

Adult prisons saw 186 unsubstantiated claims of sexual abuse and 241 unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment in 2024. Most involved incarcerated people allegedly abusing or harassing other incarcerated people. 

Ninety-eight claims were determined to be unfounded, and over a third of those claims were made against staff, contractors or volunteers. 

The report’s category for a staff member sexually abusing or harassing an incarcerated person is broader than the category for sexual abuse by an incarcerated person. For example, if an incarcerated person consents to sexual contact with a staff member, it is categorized as sexual abuse. That’s not the case for sexual contact between two willing incarcerated people. 

Jeanpierre’s conviction wasn’t the first of its kind in Wisconsin. In 2018, former correctional officer Alex Wouts was sentenced to 35 years in prison for sexually assaulting several incarcerated people, the Associated Press reported. Wouts threatened discipline and offered privileges to victims. 

The DOC’s 2024 report included a list of specific steps the department took in 2024 to safeguard against sexual abuse, which included making physical changes within facilities and holding various staff trainings. 

National PREA standards require audits for covered facilities at least once during each three-year cycle. In 2023, an auditor with the Colorado Department of Corrections audited the Oshkosh prison and reported it was in compliance with standards. 

As for Department of Corrections staff, public DOC data reports five incidents in 2025 in which staff experienced unwanted sexual contact from incarcerated people. 

Awaiting more records

On April 30, the Examiner made a public records request to the Department of Corrections for Jeanpierre’s disciplinary records. 

On May 1, the Examiner made a public records request to the Oshkosh Police Department for the final case report for the case that led to the prosecution of Jeanpierre. The department denied the request, citing an ongoing investigation. 

A few days after the Examiner took the matter to Winnebago County District Attorney Eric Sparr,  citing state public records law and the fact that Jeanpierre had already been convicted, Sparr said that he understood the matter to be resolved and that the department should be fulfilling the request. 

The Examiner has received at least some of the police reports in the case through a request to Sparr’s office, but has not yet received all records requested from the Oshkosh Police Department. 

On May 5, a police records clerk told the Examiner that she is unsure what was still being investigated, and that the report has been approved to be sent. Using language from state public records law, she said the Examiner would receive the report as soon as practicable and without delay. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund appeared to be on shaky ground Monday as he continued to face opposition from his own party.

Trump had not yet made a public announcement by late afternoon, but several media outlets reported the president planned to possibly drop the fund to clear the way for Senate Republicans to advance a $72 billion immigration enforcement funding package. Politico reported White House officials communicated the decision Monday to Republicans on Capitol Hill, according to two unnamed sources.

Trump’s fund has sparked resistance from both parties as concerns mounted that Jan. 6, 2021, riot defendants who assaulted police officers could conceivably get reparations by claiming the law was “weaponized” against them for political purposes. 

A slew of lawsuits challenging what opponents called a “slush fund” followed, including from police officers who defended the Capitol that day.

Shortly after the reports circulated that Trump might shelve the idea, the Department of Justice defended the fund on social media but said it would comply with a court order issued Friday temporarily barring the government from any further action on the fund. The order did not address the merits of a suit filed against the fund.

“The Department of Justice disagrees strongly with the decision on the Anti-Weaponization Fund put forth by the United States District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, wherein the Court stated that, under no circumstances, may the Department of Justice proceed with the Anti-Weaponization Fund recently established in order to make up for the tremendous abuse, harm, and hate unfairly shown to so many people. This Fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise. The Department will abide by the Court’s ruling,” according to the department’s post on X.

The DOJ and the White House directed States Newsroom to the post when asked if the president would scrap the fund altogether.

Several Republicans vehemently opposed the fund, including retiring Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who called the fund “stupid on stilts.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., abandoned plans for a floor vote on the immigration bill ahead of the Memorial Day recess as members threatened to defect unless the budget reconciliation package also included language to apply guardrails on the massive “anti-weaponization” pot of money.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Monday that even if Trump says he will drop the fund, “a promise from Trump is worthless.”

“If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law,” Schumer said on the floor. “This week, Senate Democrats will push legislation to ban this slush fund and ensure no president can ever do this again. Trump’s word is nowhere near enough.”

The Department of Justice announced the $1.776 billion fund on May 18 as a condition for Trump dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. A day later, the DOJ issued another order declaring Trump and his family would be forever immune from government inquiries, including tax audits, as part of Trump’s voluntary dismissal of the suit.

President Donald Trump’s extraordinary $1.776 billion fund to pay off allies and others who say they have been wronged by past administrations has drawn widespread condemnation by opponents, including some Republicans, who characterize it as an act of brazen corruption.

But the Trump administration’s push to reward its supporters also harkens back to an earlier era of American cronyism, experts say, while expanding the frontiers of political favoritism.

From the early years of the United States until well into the 19th century, a spoils system dominated the federal government. Presidents handed out jobs to supporters, filling the bureaucracy with workers who had demonstrated loyalty to the administration in power. 

Trump’s political idol, President Andrew Jackson, replaced large numbers of federal officials after his 1829 inauguration, for instance. One appointee to a role at the Port of New York made out with more than $1 million, valued at tens of millions today.

The comparison isn’t exact. The spoils system was associated with the distribution of government jobs to political allies, a practice called patronage. Trump’s new fund would instead deliver taxpayer dollars directly to favored individuals.

Yet, academics who have studied the spoils system and the presidency see parallels between the past and present — with a desire to reward allies and build allegiance at the center of it all.

“It seems to me that may be the common element here,” said Sidney Shapiro, a professor of law at Wake Forest University who wrote before the 2024 election that Trump wanted to reinstate the spoils system. “It appears President Trump is thinking about using the fund to reward people unfairly punished, but I think in his mind it’s unfairly punished because they were trying to support him.”

Five-member board to be named by Trump

The Department of Justice announced the “anti-weaponization fund,” which critics call a “slush fund,” on May 18 as it moved to settle a lawsuit Trump had filed in his personal capacity against the IRS over the leaking of his tax returns by a former agency contractor. 

The suit placed Trump in the extremely unusual position of effectively negotiating with himself because he has erased the DOJ’s post-Watergate tradition of independence from the White House.

Even before the settlement, the Justice Department under Trump had taken actions that would have been unheard of in other recent administrations. For instance, federal prosecutors have brought a case against former FBI Director James Comey and tried to pursue criminal charges against New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James. 

The DOJ has also obtained an indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, a frequent critic of GOP politicians.

Trump’s settlement agreement provides for the creation of the fund overseen by a board of five members chosen by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously served as Trump’s personal attorney. Trump can fire the members for any reason.

The fund’s board will have the power to make decisions about payments, as well as issue formal apologies. Claims submitted to the fund must be processed by Dec. 1, 2028, prior to the end of Trump’s term.

Jan. 6 rioters line up

A bevy of Trump supporters and hangers-on have said they plan to apply for compensation. They include individuals who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, disrupting Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory. Trump previously pardoned rioters when he took office in January 2025.

Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 22 years in prison before Trump pardoned him, predicted on a recent podcast that a “lot of J6ers are going to spend their money on firearms.”

Trump has cast the fund as an act of magnanimity on his part because the settlement agreement doesn’t include a monetary payout to him. 

However, Blanche also signed a document barring any additional scrutiny of the president’s past tax history, a move that shields him from audits. The New York Times and ProPublica reported in 2024 that Trump could have owed $100 million if he lost an audit battle over improper tax breaks.

“I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just announced Anti-Weaponization Fund to go forward. I could have settled my case, including the illegal release of my Tax Returns and the equally illegal BREAK IN of Mar-a-Lago, for an absolute fortune,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, referring to the FBI search of his Florida residence in 2022.

“Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE!”

Trump has adopted a “patrimonial” approach to governing, James Pfiffner, a professor emeritus at George Mason University who has studied the presidency, wrote in an email to States Newsroom. 

Benefits, like federal contracts, go to those who are loyal, Pfiffner wrote, and the government is treated as if it were a family business and the state’s resources were his personal property.

The “anti-weaponization fund” represents an extension of that approach, Pfiffner wrote, but also goes further than past presidents. He wrote that he could think of no past precedents in the modern presidency for such a blatant use of taxpayer money to potentially reward loyalists.

“At least in the spoils system, the people hired by the government were working and presumably doing their jobs,” Pfiffner wrote. “The beneficiaries of this fund have done nothing to earn their benefits, and presumably some will be rewarded for having committed crimes to overturn the 2020 election.”

Congress began curbing the spoils system after the 1881 assassination of President James Garfield by a spurned job seeker. 

Over the next two decades, many federal positions were moved into a civil service system. While the federal government still includes some 4,000 political appointees today, the vast majority of the bureaucracy is staffed by civil servants.

Critics and defenders in Congress

But it’s unclear whether Congress will block Trump’s fund, despite an intense backlash.

Anger among Republican senators has stalled action on budget legislation funding immigration enforcement, which Democrats would have used to force votes on amendments to block the fund. Democrats have introduced multiple bills aimed at halting it.

“Congress cannot stand by while Trump turns the federal government into a political operation for his friends and cronies,” Sen. Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat, said in a statement.

Obstacles exist to congressional action. Even if Republicans who control both chambers voted with Democrats, Trump could veto bills passed placing restrictions on the fund, which would require two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate to override. 

And some GOP lawmakers have defended the fund.

On May 21, Sen. Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, objected to a unanimous consent request by Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, to pass a bill that would prohibit payments to Jan. 6 rioters.

“Thankfully, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Trump Department of Justice established a standard and lawful process to hear from American citizens who suffered lawfare or weaponization under the Biden administration,” Tuberville said on the Senate floor.

Lawsuits have been filed challenging the fund and how it’s structured. Two police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 have sued, warning that rioters could use the money to organize. 

Fund blocked temporarily

On Friday, a federal judge in Virginia ordered the Trump administration to halt work on the fund for at least two weeks while she considers ordering a lengthier pause.

The decision came in a lawsuit brought by a former federal prosecutor fired by the DOJ and a California professor who was charged but acquitted of assaulting a federal officer after protesting an immigration raid.

Legal advocacy groups also argue Congress didn’t intend for federal money to be used for these kinds of payoffs.

“Another commonality is we the taxpayers are funding both,” Shapiro, the Wake Forest professor, said of the spoils system and the Trump fund. “We certainly fund the jobs that people have and now we’re funding this fund.”

The U.S. Postal Service on Friday took its first major step to carry out President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting voting by mail, proposing a rule that would require states to submit lists of voters before mailing ballots.

But the proposed rule appears to smooth over some of the rougher edges of the executive order, which has been condemned by Democratic state officials as an intrusion on their constitutional authority to administer elections.

“The proposed rule would apply uniform standards for the mailing of absentee ballots to and from voters, which the Postal Service understands will facilitate the faithful execution of federal law,” the Postal Service said in a document posted on the Federal Register website.

The executive order faces at least five lawsuits. Experts on the Postal Service have also warned that Trump’s attempt to assert authority over the agency threatens its decades-long record of independence.

The order remains in effect for now ahead of the November midterm elections. A federal judge on Thursday declined to block it after finding the federal government had taken few steps to implement it. However, with Friday’s proposed rule, that’s beginning to change.

Some exemptions

Trump’s March 31 order directed the postmaster general, who leads the Postal Service, to propose a rule that would block states from sending ballots through the mail except to voters on lists provided by the state to the Postal Service. In effect, states would be blocked from allowing residents to vote by mail unless they provide their names to the federal government.

The proposed rule fulfills that directive, but it exempts overseas and military voters — a concession that wasn’t included in the executive order. Voting by citizens who are abroad and in the military is regulated by the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. The law sets strict deadlines for states to send ballots.

The rule also doesn’t require states to submit voter lists for primary elections.

“Primary elections largely involve political parties selecting nominees through their chosen procedures, rather than direct election of federal officials, and thus implicate different considerations that bear on the necessity for these provisions,” the Postal Service said in a document outlining the proposed rule.

The Postal Service document emphasizes that states retain full control of who gets to vote by mail or alter the information. 

The proposed rule creates data reporting standards that “can provide information regarding the sending of ballots through the mails that would be available for use by law enforcement,” the document says.

The Postal Service plans to formally publish the rule on June 2.

Noncitizen voting

Trump and administration officials have framed the executive order as a way to combat noncitizen voting, which occurs very rarely. Trump has long attacked mail voting, though he has voted by mail multiple times.

“I think this will help a lot with elections,” Trump said when he signed the order.

But opponents of the executive order say it violates the U.S. Constitution, which gives states the responsibility of running elections and allows Congress to pass regulations. The order represents an attempt by Trump to unilaterally control elections, they say.

After a federal judge in Washington, D.C., declined to block the order, another federal judge in Massachusetts will hold a hearing on June 2 in a separate lawsuit challenging the directive brought by Democratic attorneys general.

“Widespread chaos and confusion is the goal of this executive order,” Cliff Albright, co-founder of Black Voters Matter, said in a statement.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s recent decision to downgrade the drug classification for medical cannabis will help medical marijuana businesses. Companies will be able to claim some federal tax benefits. New research can start up at state universities.

But the broader divide between federal and state marijuana policy remains largely intact, leaving states to navigate a fragmented and still-evolving cannabis landscape with few clear answers about what comes next.

The unprecedented change in April reclassifying medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III means the federal government is acknowledging an accepted healthcare use for cannabis. Recreational marijuana, however, remains a Schedule I drug under federal policy, even though 24 states and the District of Columbia allow recreational cannabis in various forms, from dried flower to vaping oils to processed gummy candies.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is set to hold its first hearing at the end of June on the possible de-scheduling of marijuana broadly, which would include recreational or adult-use cannabis.

Until then, some experts say little is expected to change for the more than half of states with medical or recreational marijuana programs.

“This change is sort of catching up to what states are already doing,” said Katharine Neill Harris, a drug policy fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. “In some ways the federal government is following the states on this issue.”

States have spent years building regulatory frameworks for medical and recreational marijuana programs — including licensing systems, tax structures, testing requirements and retail oversight.

Following the DEA’s announcement in April that it would reschedule medical cannabis, some state commissions acknowledged the decision but stressed that their laws have not changed and that they are awaiting further federal guidance.

In Nevada, for example, state cannabis officials released a statement noting that the rescheduling change allows medical cannabis licensees to register with the DEA, while also emphasizing that Nevada law still classifies non-medical marijuana as a Schedule I substance.

In mid-May, the California Department of Cannabis Control proposed emergency regulations that would allow businesses holding licenses for both medical and recreational marijuana to obtain separate licenses. The change could position cannabis businesses to take advantage of potential benefits tied to the rescheduling of medical marijuana.

Many of the day-to-day functions of state cannabis programs are expected to remain intact, according to experts.

“Right now, nothing would have to change for states because we don’t know what the federal regulations are going to look like for managing medical cannabis,” said Heather Trela, the director of operations and a fellow at the Rockefeller Institute of Government, a nonpartisan public policy think tank.

“Everyone’s kind of figuring it out right now, and we don’t have all the details, so it’s hard for states,” she said.

State cannabis regulators and officials in several states, including Oklahoma, Vermont and Washington, told Stateline they are waiting for guidance from the DEA and other federal agencies before determining whether businesses will be required to register with the DEA, qualify for federal tax relief or face new compliance requirements, and whether states may need to revise their own cannabis laws.

“None of us really can effectively advise our licensees, which is just incredibly frustrating, especially with a ticking clock,” said James Pepper, the chair of the Vermont Cannabis Control Board, which regulates the state’s medical and adult-use market.

In the coming months, other federal agencies may issue guidance on how rescheduling will affect existing rules, according to policy experts. The U.S. Department of Transportation said in December that drug testing and licensing standards will not change, and TSA rules still prohibit carrying marijuana on flights. Financial guidance from the IRS and the Treasury Department also are still pending.

‘Taxed like a normal business’

But some marijuana policy experts and industry leaders say the federal shift could bring major changes to cannabis business operations and scientific research.

Cannabis businesses have long been blocked from taking certain federal tax deductions because marijuana was classified as a Schedule I substance. Some industry leaders say moving medical cannabis to Schedule III could ease some of those constraints.

“Going forward, we can be treated and taxed like a normal business, which ultimately helps the bottom line and allows us to reinvest more meaningfully in the states where we operate,” said Lauren Niehaus, the executive director of government relations at Trulieve Cannabis Corp., one of the largest cannabis companies in the country. Trulieve, based in Florida, operates dispensaries in eight states.

The tax policy change is a central issue for cannabis operators across the board, from small businesses to large multistate companies, Niehaus said.

Ryan Hunter, the chief revenue officer of Spherex Labs, said rescheduling changes could shift investor and lender attitudes toward the cannabis industry, with some capital partners becoming more willing to invest.

But Hunter said the latest federal change also creates new uncertainty for companies operating in both medical and recreational markets, including Spherex Labs, which operates in Colorado.

“Our business is still very much in wait-and-see mode,” Hunter said. “There are a lot of positive gains here, but really more than anything, a lot more confusion.”

The federal government has effectively created different legal frameworks for the same substance, he added. Medical cannabis is now federally recognized, while recreational marijuana and its consumers remain in conflict with federal law.

The rescheduling change also carries federal registration requirements under the Controlled Substances Act, a law that would require medical cannabis businesses to register with the DEA, pay annual fees, and comply with detailed reporting, inventory and security rules that may overlap or conflict with existing state systems.

Spherex Labs has chosen not to register at this time, Hunter said, opting to wait for further federal guidance.

Earlier this month, the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control sent a letter to licensed medical cannabis businesses encouraging them to register with the DEA and warning of possible sanctions, including revocation of their state licenses, for failing to comply with federal requirements.

But the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority, which oversees cannabis licensing and regulation in the state, told Stateline the letter came as a surprise and that it remains unclear whether federal officials actually intend to require DEA registration for medical operators.

Other states could adopt similar federal registration requirements, according to Trela, of the Rockefeller Institute of Government.

Cannabis research

Some researchers and experts say rescheduling marijuana could reduce longstanding barriers to studying its medical use, safety and long-term health effects.

Current research on marijuana’s effects falls short of what is needed to fully understand cannabis as a medical treatment, according to Chad Johnson, an assistant professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. Johnson also is the director of the university’s medical cannabis graduate studies program.

“We really do need those randomized trials to really say that cannabis is effective for treating a particular condition,” Johnson said.

There are still major gaps in cannabis research, he said, including how it is formulated and delivered, such as whether methods beyond smoking, vaping or edibles may be more effective, and how to determine appropriate dosing for specific medical conditions.

Johnson added that rescheduling could allow academic institutions to study products already being sold in their respective states, making research more closely aligned with what consumers are actually using, rather than relying on cannabis sourced through federally authorized suppliers.

Some public health and addiction experts say the federal shift should not be interpreted as a signal that cannabis is risk-free, pointing to ongoing concerns about cannabis use disorders, dependency and effects on mental health.

“It’s going to reduce the public’s perception of risk of cannabis, and right now, I don’t think the public is aware of the high potency that cannabis has,” said Dr. Alta DeRoo, the chief medical officer of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, one of the largest nonprofit treatment providers for addiction and mental health. DeRoo also is a board-certified addiction medicine physician and OB-GYN.

Some opponents of the change also argue it is driven as much by political and economic pressure from the cannabis industry as by evolving science.

“The issue is not research. The issue is money, tax breaks for an industry, and that’s really what the whole effort to relax marijuana laws is about,” said Kevin Sabet, a former drug policy adviser to three presidential administrations and the president and CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a nonprofit that opposes legalizing marijuana.

What’s next

New federal changes also could face court challenges or be reversed by a future administration, according to some cannabis policy experts.

Last week, the attorneys general of Indiana, Louisiana and Nebraska filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, arguing that the Justice Department’s rescheduling order violates federal administrative law. Louisiana and Nebraska have medical-only cannabis programs, while Indiana does not have a cannabis program at all.

Smart Approaches to Marijuana and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association filed a similar lawsuit earlier this month, arguing that the administration exceeded its authority under the Controlled Substances Act.

At the same time, the White House’s latest National Drug Control Strategy document also raised concerns about high-potency marijuana and warned that international cartels and organized crime groups continue to exploit state cannabis legalization laws.

Aside from criminal justice implications, federal restrictions have limited cannabis businesses’ access to banking, investment and long-term planning, even as state markets have expanded into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Banks have largely avoided working with cannabis businesses because marijuana remains broadly illegal under federal law, which exposes financial institutions to potential regulatory penalties and compliance risks even in states where cannabis is legal.

Several bills have been introduced in Congress that would provide protections for banks offering services to cannabis businesses, but no legislation has been adopted.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund has attracted scrutiny for its corruption potential, even splitting congressional Republicans who rarely confront President Donald Trump’s decisions and policies. 

Among the top concerns: Could pardoned Jan. 6, 2021, riot defendants who assaulted police officers claim a slice of the pie and essentially be rewarded for committing political violence? 

Advocates are also legally challenging the fund’s structure that will conceal details from the public, including claimants’ names and amounts paid out.

Nikhel Sus, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, otherwise known as CREW, which has filed suit against the fund, told States Newsroom the administration’s order is a “flagrant power grab of congressional authority.”

The fund, established by the Department of Justice to settle Trump’s multibillion dollar lawsuit against the IRS, has also complicated Senate Republicans’ plans to pass a simple majority immigration enforcement funding package. Some GOP senators are withholding votes unless guardrails for the fund are included in the legislation.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Republican senators on Capitol Hill on May 21 to defend the fund, but many GOP lawmakers left unconvinced and with multiple questions remaining.

Retiring Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told reporters the fund is “stupid on stilts” and resembles “tyranny.”

Others were sweating out questions at town halls during the congressional recess. 

“I do not think one penny of any fund should ever go to any January 6 insurrectionist that was in the Capitol on January 6, 2021 … I want to be very clear … I clearly think Congress needs to have an oversight role in this before I can sign off or support this,” U.S. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., said at a town hall in Norfolk, Nebraska, on May 26.

The fund hit a road bump on May 29 when it was temporarily blocked in the courts. Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia, in a suit in which plaintiffs are represented by the advocacy groups Democracy Forward and Common Cause, issued a brief order halting the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department and other high-ranking administration officials from taking any additional actions to create the fund or make payments from it.

Brinkema, who made no decisions on the merits of the case, set a June 12 hearing.

What is the “anti-weaponization” fund?

In exchange for Trump and his family dropping a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for the 2019 leak of tax returns, the DOJ ordered the establishment of a settlement fund in the amount of $1.776 billion — a nod to the country’s founding. 

As part of the arrangement, Trump also agreed to drop an administrative claim for damages related to what Blanche described as an “unlawful” FBI raid of the president’s Mar-a-Lago residence, part of the Biden administration’s case against Trump for allegedly hoarding classified documents after leaving office. 

Trump also agreed to drop a claim for damages related to the DOJ’s 2019 inquiry into Russian meddling in Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. 

Blanche introduced the fund on May 18 as a path to restitution for “victims of lawfare.”

“The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” Blanche said in a press release. 

The fund will be led by five commissioners chosen by the attorney general, one of them in consultation with Congress. The president has the power to remove any member, according to the DOJ.

The department maintains the fund is nonpartisan. In addition to money, the DOJ will also issue formal apologies to eligible claimants, according to officials. 

Who is trying to limit or shut down the fund?

House Democrats tried to intervene in the president’s IRS case settlement, but U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams dismissed the case on Trump’s terms. Williams was appointed to the bench in the Southern District of Florida in 2010 by President Barack Obama.

On May 27, nearly three dozen former federal judges urged Williams to reopen the case, arguing the Trump administration “deceived” the court by not sharing with the judge details of the “anti-weaponization” fund. 

Further, the judges argued, the DOJ also claims the settlement forever absolves Trump and his family from tax audits and any other claims by a federal agency.  

“The parties to this case are using this lawsuit as the legal justification for these actions,” the judges argued.

Legislative proposals have also popped up in the House and Senate.

A bipartisan bill from Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., both up for re-election in swing districts, proposes to ban the use of federal money to pay claims submitted to the “anti-weaponization” fund.

“The Bipartisan Transparency for American Taxpayers Act ensures federal funds cannot be used for this fund without the transparency, oversight, and legal safeguards the American people deserve. Taxpayer dollars will not become a discretionary payout fund. Transparency is not optional. Accountability is not negotiable,” Fitzpatrick said in a press release.

Suozzi characterized the arrangement as a “slush fund to pay off January 6th criminals and other maladjusted minions!”

When pressed during a May 19 Senate hearing on whether Jan. 6 defendants who were convicted of assaulting police officers would be eligible for the fund, Blanche said “anybody in this country can apply” and final decisions will be made by the fund’s commissioners.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., announced plans to introduce painful amendments when and if the Senate GOP brings its immigration enforcement funding bill to the floor.

Van Hollen said he will call for votes on an amendment to block payment to Jan. 6 defendants who have been convicted of violent crimes and sexual abuse of children.

The Maryland senator also said he will introduce an amendment that would prohibit members of Congress from receiving payouts.

“And as it currently stands, Members of Congress have the chance to benefit from this corrupt scheme. If Republicans won’t put an end to this fund entirely, they should at least join with us to bar Members of Congress from cashing in on it,” Van Hollen said May 21 in a written statement.

Who is suing?

Multiple lawsuits have been filed against the fund.

U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Washington Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges, who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021,  argued in federal court that the pardoned rioters could use payout money to organize.

“In the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century, President Donald J. Trump has created a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name,” they argued in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 

Legal advocacy groups, including CREW, Democracy Forward and Common Cause have also challenged the fund in court.

Through the order, the administration has granted itself “final unreviewable authority to disperse nearly $1.8 billion in money that Congress did not appropriate for that purpose to people that they subjectively determine are victims of so-called lawfare or weaponization,” Sus, of CREW, said in an interview.

The fund’s structure also flouts transparency laws, Sus said, not least of which includes moving $1.776 billion from the government’s legal judgment fund in a single transaction to a separate, unaccountable pot of money.

As the law stands now, the Department of Treasury publicly updates a website at least once per month with judgment award amounts paid to claimants by the U.S. government.

By withdrawing one lump sum, “they are wholly circumventing disclosure law that Congress passed specifically for that purpose to require disclosure for each settlement,” said Sus, whose organization filed the complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

CREW also argues DOJ’s order is arbitrary and capricious.

“I think arbitrarily picking 1776 as the number for their (fund) valuation is the definition of an arbitrary capricious action — like they just did it because they thought it was cool,” he said.

“And that’s not how the government’s supposed to operate. They’re supposed to actually consider the facts, they’re supposed to have a reasoned explanation for why they’re doing things.”

In the Virginia case, another group of plaintiffs is represented by Democracy Forward and Common Cause.

Among the plaintiffs are Andrew Floyd, a former federal Jan. 6 case prosecutor who was fired by the DOJ in June 2025, and Joseph Caravello, a California university professor who was charged with felony assault on a federal officer after protesting an immigration raid last summer. A jury acquitted Caravello in April.

The nine-count lawsuit alleges in part the fund violates the plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights, and violates the authority of Congress.

The fund “does not offer benefits to victims of ideological targeting by Democrats and Republicans alike; instead, it offers benefits to those who have espoused views that were, or were perceived to be, oppositional to Democratic administrations, but not to those who have espoused views that were, or were perceived to be, oppositional to Republican administrations,” according to the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Juan Salinas II of the Nebraska Examiner contributed to this report.

 

  

WASHINGTON — A group of U.S. Senate Democrats has sent a letter to the head of the Congressional Budget Office, asking him to include outside projections for the cost of the Iran war in the agency’s official cost estimate. 

“The American people deserve to know the true costs of this conflict, and they deserve transparency and honesty when their government commits the nation to war,” the senators wrote in the May 27 letter to the nonpartisan agency. “Your timely and comprehensive estimate of the immediate and long-term budgetary consequences will help ensure that the Iran war remains subject to rigorous and appropriate legislative oversight.”

House Budget Committee ranking member Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., sent a letter to the CBO in early March, asking the agency to estimate what the conflict would cost “under several scenarios, including scenarios of the war lasting longer than 4 to 5 weeks and deploying U.S. troops on the ground in Iran.” 

The senators’ letter asks CBO Director Phillip Swagel to “take into consideration the significant divergence between the administration’s public estimates and those produced by independent analysts and investigative journalists.”

The senators wrote that while Pentagon officials said in mid-May they believed the war had cost about $29 billion, other estimates placed its total costs much higher. 

“It is essential that Congress and the American public receive accurate, comprehensive estimates of the costs of the war in Iran,” they wrote. 

Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, California Sen. Alex Padilla, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, Connecticut Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff, Illinois Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, Maryland Sens. Angela Alsobrooks and Chris Van Hollen, Massachusetts Sens. Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and Andy Kim, New York Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, Oregon Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, Vermont Sen. Peter Welch and Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine all signed the letter. 

State Rep. Jim Piwowarczyk (R-Hubertus) and 39 other Republican legislators (33 from the Assembly and 6 from the Senate) sent a letter to Gov. Tony Evers Tuesday requesting that he suspend his new effort to process commutations (a reduction or a modification of a criminal sentence) out of concern over “serious consequences it is having on victims, law enforcement, families and public confidence in Wisconsin’s justice system.”

On April 3, Evers announced, under his executive authority to grant clemency (pardons, reprieves, and commutations), that he would make commutations available again in the state after 25 years since the last commutation had been issued.

A commutation doesn’t automatically mean a person in prison will be released. It could mean the incarcerated portion of the sentence is shortened, but the applicant still has prison time to complete, as well as fulfilling extended supervision. 

On April 3, Evers issued two executive orders: Executive Order 287, creating the Governor’s Commutation Advisory Board and Executive Order 288, creating a Juvenile Life Sentence Process.

Juvenile commutation is only available to those who were 19 years of age or younger at the time of their conviction. The juvenile commutation is also restricted to those who were sentenced as adults and received a life sentence or at least 39 years of incarceration.

The eligibility requirements for the two commutation applications share five specific conditions:

1. Applicants must currently be incarcerated in a correctional institution for a Wisconsin conviction with more than one year of the incarceration term remaining.
2. They must have served at least half of their incarceration term or at least 20 years of a life sentence.
3. They must not have any unresolved criminal charges or outstanding warrants in any jurisdiction.
4. There cannot be any incidents of violent misconduct within the last five years of current incarceration.
5. The commutation is not for any of the following offenses: sexual assault, physical abuse of a child, trafficking of a child, incest, and soliciting a child for prostitution.

Commutation applications have been offered online, and the first commutation hearings are expected to be held in June.

Soon after Evers announced he would be offering commutations, Republican legislators began expressing their opposition.

One of their criticisms is that by making the commutation process widely available, it is disruptive to the intent of truth-in-sentencing laws passed in the late 1990s, early 2000s, which require people convicted of serious crimes  to serve the totality of a prison sentence, including years in incarceration and extended supervision, without the possibility of a parole board shortening that sentence.

“For decades, Wisconsin maintained a commonsense approach that respected the finality of sentencing decisions and the voices of victims,” Piwowarczyk wrote in a press release announcing the letter to Evers. “There can be no justification for commuting the sentences of convicted murderers who shattered families and communities. Any commutation process must exclude homicide offenders and ensure victims have a real voice before any action is taken.”

However, under the executive authority in the state constitution, a governor has broad power to offer commutations. 

The Republicans’ letter highlights the case of Ted Oswald, who was convicted of murdering Waukesha Police Captain James Lutz.

The letter to Evers requests that no applicant who has murdered a law enforcement officer be given a commutation, and in Piwowarczyk’s press release, he broadens that request to remove “all homicide offenders from eligibility for commutation consideration.”

The letter also contends that families and victims are learning about applications  for commutation via social media, rather than through a reliable victim notification process.

“We also ask you to strengthen victim notification requirements, ensure victims and their families have a voice in the process, and require full notification to district attorneys and sentencing judges whenever commutation applications are filed,”  the letter states.

In Piwowarczyk’s press release, he specifically requests “creating a robust public notification system and online tracking log for commutation applicants,” and offering notification to victims at least 90 days out, and guaranteeing victims and families are heard at hearings.

On Gov. Evers’ commutation webpage, in answer to the question “Will the victim have a say in my application?” the reply is,  “Yes, the perspectives and opinions of victims will be an important consideration for the Commutations Advisory Board.”

Commutation applicants are also required to notify circuit court and the district attorneys’ offices of their petitions for early release. 

In his April 3 press release, Evers defended commutation as promoting “rehabilitation by providing a system that rewards the positive efforts of incarcerated individuals who demonstrate personal growth and a commitment to change with the possibility of a second chance to contribute to society, become productive members of their communities, make amends and improve their lives and those of the people around them.”

The Governor also said he was offering commutations to “build upon” his efforts to reform Wisconsin’s justice system in the absence of efforts by the  Wisconsin  Legislature to reform the state’s criminal justice system.

The Wisconsin prison population is at a historic high, exceeding 23,000. Evers promised at the beginning of his administration in 2019 to cut the incarcerated population in half, but the population has floated around 23,000 without significant change.

Criminal justice advocates have pressured Evers to use his executive authority to offer commutations to lower the prison population, especially for those who have been in prison for years and have matured and become responsible individuals capable of living in society

Left out of much of the criticism of Evers’ commutation plan is the fact that an application doesn’t guarantee success – it just offers, for those who are qualified, a chance to apply for a commutation. Applicants who are rejected will have to wait a year to apply again.

The Wisconsin Examiner reached out to the governor’s office for a response to the letter, but did not receive a response Wednesday.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

An anti-abortion group last month sued seven Utah fertility clinics, claiming their disposal of embryos as part of the in vitro fertilization process violates the state’s wrongful death law.

The ministry Voice for the Voiceless believes it has a strong case because Utah is one of four states — Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri are the others — that have both a “fetal personhood” law and a civil wrongful death law that, the group contends, might apply to frozen embryos.

Other states offer opportunity for similar lawsuits: At least 10 have either a fetal personhood law — giving a fetus, embryo or fertilized egg the same legal rights as a person who has been born — or a wrongful death statute that might include frozen embryos, according to Pregnancy Justice, a group that tracks the issue and advocates for the rights of pregnant women, including the right to abortion.

“There’s a number of states that have laws like Utah’s that find that a person exists at a certain point, and that is conception,” said Frank Mylar, the attorney representing Voice for the Voiceless. He also represents another plaintiff, an anonymous woman from Ogden, Utah, who alleges in the lawsuit that she underwent an IVF procedure at one of the seven fertility clinics and was not informed that unused embryos would be discarded or about options to put her embryos up for adoption.

“Once that egg is fertilized, it actually at that point becomes a human being that’s entitled to rights,” Mylar said in an interview. “So every state that has that as a law, what we’re doing in this lawsuit would be very much applicable.”

The lawsuit illustrates the divide among many in the anti-abortion movement. Followers of a conservative philosophy known as “pronatalism” believe it’s imperative for Americans to have more babies. They want easier access to IVF, and President Donald Trump campaigned on making IVF more affordable.

So far, he has negotiated steep discounts on three IVF drugs and proposed allowing employers to provide separate health insurance coverage for fertility benefits, including lab tests, medications, genetic testing and IVF.

But the IVF process often involves discarding embryos, creating a conundrum for people who support IVF but believe that life begins at fertilization and oppose abortion. For anti-abortion purists, those embryos are unborn children, so disposing of them is no different from abortion.

The split on the political right drew attention in February 2024, when the Alabama Supreme Court, which consists of nine Republicans, ruled 8-1 that the state’s wrongful death statute applied to embryos. That decision cleared the way for couples to pursue lawsuits if their frozen embryos were destroyed. It temporarily halted IVF at Alabama clinics. It also ignited a national uproar and prompted the Republican-led Alabama legislature to immediately step in to protect IVF providers from legal liability.

But court cases and legislative efforts in multiple states show that the IVF debate is ongoing.

In Indiana and Ohio, courts have weighed whether frozen embryos are people or property in cases involving former partners who disagreed on what to do with their embryos when they separated.

In Kentucky, a judge earlier this month struck down language in the state’s abortion ban defining human life as beginning at conception, handing a victory to a Jewish woman who argued that the ban violated her religious freedom by putting her at risk of prosecution if she pursued IVF. The state has appealed the case.

In Kansas, a proposed bill this year would have made it illegal to destroy a fertilized embryo, though it died in committee. And Tennessee last year became the first state in the South to enact a law explicitly affirming the right to access IVF and birth control.

Kulsoom Ijaz, a senior policy counsel for Pregnancy Justice, predicted that IVF opponents will continue to use fetal personhood language to challenge the fertility procedure. Ijaz said that when fetal personhood language appears in one area of state law, “it inspires legislators to align their laws across the board, with these equal-protection-for-the-unborn bills.”

Then, she said, “courts use these definitions to then make case law in other areas of the law.”

Risa Cromer, an anthropology associate professor at Purdue University who focuses on medicine and reproductive politics, described personhood language as “a threat for broad swaths of reproductive health care needs that remain highly popular, IVF being one of them.”

“Personhood doesn’t explicitly implicate abortion miscarriage management, treatment for ectopic pregnancy, contraception, or IVF. In judicial interpretation, it absolutely is proving to be a threat,” Cromer said.

Utah lawsuit

IVF involves retrieving a woman’s eggs from her body and then fertilizing them with sperm in a laboratory. Any embryos that result can then be either transferred to her uterus or frozen for future use. Unused embryos can also be adopted, but many are discarded. And storing frozen embryos can be costly, from hundreds to thousands of dollars per year.

Louisiana is the only state that bans the destruction of IVF embryos. But fertility clinics have gotten around the 1986 law by shipping unused embryos out of state for storage.

The lawsuit says Voice for the Voiceless is morally opposed to IVF. But it also claims the clinics could perform IVF without discarding embryos by only creating as many embryos as will be implanted into their clients.

Mylar, the attorney, said defendants could change their clinic policies to comply with the state’s wrongful death statute “if they basically said, ‘Our intent is that you have every one of these fertilized eggs, and we’re not going to willingly or negligently or intentionally let them die.’”

Voice for the Voiceless President Kriss Martenson, named as a plaintiff, said in an interview that he does not believe IVF could be practiced without violating the law. He said the lawsuit is a strategic effort to apply fetal personhood language to IVF and to abortion at all stages. The lawsuit says the organization, which it describes as a nonprofit, has legal standing because of its efforts opposing abortion in Utah.

Martenson said he was inspired to file the Utah lawsuit by the 2024 Alabama Supreme Court decision and by the combination of Utah’s fetal personhood and wrongful death laws.

A victory in the lawsuit “could strengthen the legal arguments that the state has a constitutional obligation to protect human life from the moment of fertilization,” Martenson said. “So that’s what I’m showing in Utah, and I think that could affect other states.”

Discarding embryos

Disposal of embryos is common in IVF because for each single fertilization effort, multiple embryos are created to maximize the chance of success. Typically only one or two are transferred to a patient’s uterus, however, to prevent high-risk pregnancies of multiple fetuses. Some embryos are discarded because of chromosomal issues or genetic diseases, discovered during genetic screening in the lab. The Utah lawsuit charges that this is “akin to eugenics.”

Stateline contacted all of the clinics named in the lawsuit, but one declined to comment and the others did not respond in time for publication. The defendants have not yet filed written responses to the lawsuit. The seven clinics are: Conceptions Fertility Center, East Bay Fertility Center, Reproductive Care Center, Utah Center for Reproductive Medicine, Utah Fertility Center, Utah Fertility Specialists and Wellnest Fertility Clinic.

Susan Crockin, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center who teaches assisted reproductive technology law, said it is standard practice to inform IVF patients about their options around unused embryos. If the lawsuit is successful, Crockin said, it could severely curtail patient choice.

“The one thing that I think gets lost in this debate often is that a number of embryos that are not used for procreation … because they potentially have a genetic anomaly that is incompatible with life,” Crockin said. “So if every IVF embryo is considered a legally recognized person, I don’t understand what these anti-abortion, anti-IVF advocates would have us do with these embryos that will be sitting in cryopreservation tanks, or will not be making a viable human being.”

She added that “conflating every attempt to have a family with ‘every embryo in a freezer deserves to be put into a deserving womb’ feels very dangerous.”

Cromer, of Purdue University, noted that “the vast majority of religious Americans are supportive of access to IVF.” Cromer is a fellow at the Public Religion Research Institute, which found in a 2024 survey that majorities of white evangelical Protestants, Hispanic Protestants and Latter-day Saints both oppose laws that would make IVF illegal and strongly support laws declaring that human life begins at fertilization.

“So, these kinds of lawsuits, while there might be political opportunity for particular jurisdictions, such as the state of Utah, (are) completely out of step with what most Americans — religious Americans — want for themselves, their families and their neighbors,” Cromer said.

Stateline reporter Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org.

WASHINGTON — A multibillion-dollar package to fund immigration enforcement for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term faced new delays Thursday as Senate Republicans showed a rare split with the president over his new “anti-weaponization” fund.

The administration dispatched Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Republicans as many fought to add restrictions to Trump’s $1.776 billion fund as a condition for passing a proposed $72 billion for the departments of Homeland Security and Justice.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the hourslong closed-door meeting with Blanche included “spirited discussion.”

The Department of Justice announced Monday the fund for “victims of lawfare” in exchange for Trump dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. Both agencies are under his purview.

“It’s unprecedented to see a settlement between two parties that seem to be the same person,” Paul said.

Ultimately, senators left their meeting with Blanche with no immediate path forward for the budget reconciliation bill that requires a simple majority to pass. Senate Majority Leader John Thune can only afford to lose a handful of votes in the GOP-led Senate that is split 53-47, as all Democrats vow to oppose the package.

“We’re going home,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said as he made flight arrangements with his staff while standing outside the meeting room. 

Thune told reporters “we will pick up where we left off.” 

Asked whether he thinks a resolution can be reached, the South Dakota Republican said “that’s what I’m counting on.” 

The Senate has adjourned except for pro forma sessions until the afternoon of June 1, the date Trump set to have the finished bill on his desk.

Among the sticking points in the Blanche meeting: whether Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot defendants who assaulted police officers would qualify for the financial relief.

“I did raise that issue,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. “But we haven’t seen (bill) language yet.”

The administration maintains the fund will be nonpartisan, and not only open to Trump supporters. A five-seat commission — four to be appointed by Blanche and the fifth in consultation with Congress — will issue decisions on financial claims.

Further details emerged Tuesday from the Department of Justice, revealing that Trump and his family will be forever immune from tax audits as part of the settlement.

Ballroom battle

Before debate erupted over Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund, Republicans had already fractured over a $1 billion Secret Service security earmark in the bill, $220 million of which was set to be used to “harden” Trump’s White House ballroom project.

The funds for the “East Wing Modernization Project” would have paid for bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies and filtration systems designed to detect chemical or other contaminants. 

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who lost his primary Saturday after Trump supported another candidate, told reporters he would not vote for ballroom funds.

Democrats claimed credit for getting the $1 billion tossed from the bill after challenging whether the provision fit within the strict parameters of reconciliation. Ultimately, the Senate parliamentarian ruled it out, sparking a social media attack from Trump Tuesday.

Trump told reporters Thursday if Senate Republicans didn’t find a way to pass the extra security money, “Then the White House won’t be a very secure place.”

Senate Dems vow to stop ‘slush fund’

Democrats pounced on the opportunity to spotlight the Republican division.

“This afternoon, Republicans — so divided, so dysfunctional, so disorganized — are fleeing Washington,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters at a press conference after movement on the package stalled. 

“Republicans are divided over things that Americans don’t want, but Democrats are united around things that the people do want — for us to lower their costs, rein in the chaos, fight the corruption that is endemic to this administration,” the New York Democrat added. 

Schumer added that “we’ll do everything we can to stop this slush fund, whether it’s in the courts, whether it’s legislative, whether it’s through reconciliation, or any other legislative means.”

Senate Democrats still plan to offer up a handful of painful amendments for GOP senators to vote on during a marathon voting session when and if the bill finally reaches the floor. 

War powers vote postponed

On the other side of the Capitol, House Republicans abruptly delayed an Iran War Powers Resolution vote moments before it was scheduled to open on the floor.

This would have been the fourth time Democrats brought the privileged motion to the floor. The 1970s-era War Powers Resolution sets reporting procedures and limitations on a president’s military campaigns abroad.

An effort to curtail Trump’s campaign in Iran failed in a tied House vote just one week ago.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., shouted on the floor as the presiding officer moved procedures forward, skipping the War Powers Resolution.

“Are we not voting on it because the American people are sick and tired of this illegal war that’s costing tens of billions of dollars? Gas prices are through the roof. People can’t afford their groceries,” McGovern said, alleging the Republicans lacked the “guts” to vote on it.

The House now also leaves for the Memorial Day break and will not return until June 1.

House Speaker Mike Johnson’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed the request from the U.S. Department of Justice for Wisconsin’s unredacted voter rolls. The ruling marks a defeat in the Trump administration’s renewed effort to scrutinize the election administration of swing states that President Donald Trump lost in 2020. 

The federal government first requested Wisconsin’s unredacted voter registration list last summer,  making a similar request to most other states. The Wisconsin Elections Commission denied the DOJ request, citing state privacy laws, and pointed the department to the publicly available redacted list. 

The DOJ responded by suing WEC for the unredacted list. The federal government has filed similar lawsuits in 30 other states. 

Republicans and their allies have for years alleged that the data management practices of state election administrators are vulnerable to fraud. Voting rights groups and Democrats have countered that the Trump administration is seeking to fan the flames of election conspiracy theories and meddle in state elections by collecting massive amounts of voter data. 

U.S. Judge James Peterson found that the personal information of voters, including birthdays, Social Security numbers and driver’s license details, isn’t a record the DOJ can demand under the Civil Rights Act. 

“Defendants and their amici contend that the government’s position fails for multiple reasons, specifically: (1) a voter registration list is not a record subject to production under Title III; (2) the government has not provided an adequate statement of basis and purpose, as required by the statute; (3) the government has not explained why it needs an unredacted copy of the voter list, as opposed to the publicly available redacted version; and (4) the government’s request is barred by state and federal privacy laws,” Peterson wrote. “The court agrees that a voter registration list is not a record subject to production under Title III, so it will dismiss the complaint on that ground without considering defendants’ other arguments.”

The DOJ has lost parallel efforts to obtain this type of data in eight other federal district courts. 

After Peterson’s ruling, attorneys from Law Forward and the ACLU celebrated the decision, stating that it protects Wisconsin’s voters from potential intimidation. 

“Requiring Wisconsin to disclose this sensitive personal information despite laws prohibiting just that would have threatened the privacy of Wisconsin voters and the removal of eligible voters from voter rolls for no reason,” said Doug Poland, Law Forward’s director of litigation. “Federal law leaves it to states to administer their own elections, and Wisconsin already has reliable processes for maintaining its voter rolls.”

Poland said the purported premise behind the federal demand — to uncover evidence of noncitizens voting in elections — was a pretext.

“Given the rarity of noncitizen voting, this lawsuit, and similar efforts in other states, are thinly-masked efforts to manipulate and subvert future elections,” he said. “The court recognized this as an illegal attempt to gather and weaponize data on Americans, dressed up in the language of voting rights enforcement. We will continue to stand up to the Trump administration’s illegal schemes to interfere with elections administration and erode the rights of voters in Wisconsin.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Democratic U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin, Bernie Sanders, and Chris Van Hollen have sent a joint letter to the secretary of  the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), condemning the arrest and detention of Salah Sarsour, the president of Milwaukee’s Islamic Society, and charging that Sarsour has received inadequate medical care Sarsour at an Indiana immigration detention center where he’s being held. 

Sarsour has been detained since late March.  His family and supporters say that Sarsour, a man of Palestinian descent, was targeted for his criticism of the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians and the mass slaughter in Gaza. DHS has accused the father and business owner of lying on his green card application more than 30 years ago. 

The federal government has called Sarsour a terrorist who was detained as a teenager for attempting to possess weapons or ammunition. As a boy Sarsour was detained by Israeli forces in the West Bank, where torture and abuse of Palestinian prisoners have been reported for decades, something Sarsour said had happened to him as well. 

In their letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Baldwin, Sanders, and Van Hollen called Sarsour a business owner, father, grandfather and a “respected leader in the Milwaukee community.” He has lived in the United States as a legal permanent resident since 1993 and has not acquired a criminal record in that time. 

“We are deeply concerned that Mr. Sarsour was targeted in retaliation for his activism,” the senators wrote. “Through his work with the Islamic Society of Milwaukee and American Muslims for Palestine, Mr. Sarsour has spoken out passionately against the war in Gaza and on issues impacting the Islamic Society. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees everyone in our country, including lawful permanent residents, the right to speak freely without fear of retribution from the government.”

The senators added that they are concerned about Sarour’s health in detention. “Those in federal custody must be treated humanely and receive the level of care required,” the senators wrote. “Mr. Sarsour is a diabetic and we are concerned that he does not have appropriate access to healthcare, medical supplies, and a healthy diet required to properly manage that chronic condition, including by regularly testing blood glucose.” 

Sarsour has also not been provided “reasonable religious accommodations, such as a prayer mat,” the senators wrote. “He had been using a facility-issued bath towel to perform his prayers, but this was recently confiscated without explanation and Mr. Sarsour has been forced to pray on the facility’s barren floors. This treatment is unacceptable.”

Baldwin, Sanders, and Van Hollen demanded answers to several questions by May 31. They asked DHS to provide documentation that immigration officers relied on when they decided to arrest Sarsour and requested communications with the White House or Office of Budget and Management regarding Sarsour’s detention. 

They also asked whether Sarsour has access to proper healthcare and nutrition, what protocols immigration detention centers have regarding detainees with hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia, whether those protocols are being followed with Sarsour, and what protocols exist for providing detainees with reasonable religious accommodations. 

“Our nation’s founders realized that democracy cannot exist in a nation with a government that restricts or limits the speech and expression of its people,” they wrote. “The Constitution protects an individual’s right to express their political views and have their voice heard. We condemn any attempts by this Administration to use the power of the United States government to unfairly target and punish people for simply disagreeing with it.”

Members of Congress, including U.S. Reps. Gwen Moore, Mark Pocan, Greg Cesar of Texas, and Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, have also called for Sarsour’s release, joining a list of supporters   including Gov. Tony Evers, Milwaukee elected leaders, former elected officials  and numerous local activist and advocacy groups. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE