Tesla is facing a lawsuit in California from an owner who claims the company’s odometers exaggerate how far its vehicles have traveled. According to the complaint, Tesla allegedly does this on purpose to avoid covering warranty repairs and to accelerate the depreciation of its vehicles.

The lawsuit argues that Tesla does not use mechanical or electronic systems to measure distance. Instead, Tesla reportedly relies on “predictive algorithms, energy consumption metrics, and driver behavior multipliers that manipulate and misrepresent the actual mileage traveled by Tesla vehicles.”

Read: Tesla Finally Launches Cheaper Model Y Juniper In America

By “tying warranty limits and lease mileage caps to inflated odometer readings,” Tesla can allegedly increase repair revenue and reduce its warranty obligations. It can also cause consumers to purchase extended warranties prematurely.

The case was filed by Nyree Hinton, who says they bought a 2020 Tesla Model Y in December 2022 with 36,772 miles on it. Hinton states that from December 14, 2022, to February 6, 2023, they averaged 55.54 miles per day, but between March 26, 2023, and June 28, 2023, this spiked to 72.53 miles per day, just as the Model Y was approaching its warranty expiration. The owner estimates that the average mileage should have been roughly 20 miles fewer per day because of their consistent routine during this time.

Additionally, previous vehicles owned by the plaintiff averaged 6,086 miles over six months, but the Model Y reported 13,228 miles over the same period. The lawsuit claims the mileage shown by Tesla’s odometer can be inflated from 15% to as much as 117%.

The plaintiff notes that while Tesla can measure its vehicles using GPS with incredible precision, a patent from the EV maker apparently says the odometer readings are not direct measurements of distance traveled and use a “miles-to-electrical energy conversion factor” that varies dynamically based on road and traffic conditions.

These Complaints Aren’t New

This isn’t the first time Tesla owners have questioned how mileage is calculated. For years, some have raised concerns about their cars showing unexpectedly high mileage. Some threads on Reddit and Tesla forums claim that these issues have persisted for over two years, with owners trading anecdotes and comparisons that echo the claims in Hinton’s lawsuit.

People demonstrate outside the main campus of the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention on April 1, 2025 in Atlanta, Georgia. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. laid off thousands of employees across multiple agencies on April 1, as part of an overhaul announced in March. (Photo by Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images)

A coalition of Democratic state officials sued the Trump administration Tuesday over plans to cut more than $11 billion in grants by the Department of Health and Human Services, on the same day thousands of HHS workers reportedly found they’d been swept up in a mass layoff.

In Washington, the Republican chairman and top Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee wrote HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. asking him to appear before the panel and discuss his plans for the massive agency.

The federal suit, signed by 22 attorneys general and two Democratic governors, alleges Kennedy revoked, without warning, billions in grant funding appropriated by Congress during the COVID-19 pandemic, starting last week. That led to states scrambling to adjust plans for vaccination efforts, infectious disease prevention, mental health programs and more.

The sudden and chaotic rollout of the grant cuts foreshadowed a scene at HHS offices, including at big campuses in Maryland, on Tuesday morning. Termination notices to laid-off workers were reportedly emailed early Tuesday, but many workers did not see them before arriving at the office and finding out they’d lost their jobs when their key cards did not work.

Few specifics

Both the mass layoffs and the grant funding cuts challenged in the lawsuit stem from Kennedy’s March 27 announcement that the department would be “realigning,” by shuttering several offices and cutting 10,000 workers.

It was unclear Tuesday exactly what offices or employees were affected.

An HHS spokesperson responded to a request for comment by referring States Newsroom to Kennedy’s announcement, a press release and an accompanying fact sheet from March 27.

None provided a detailed breakdown but laid out plans to eliminate 3,500 full-time positions at the Food and Drug Administration, 2,400 employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1,200 staff at the National Institutes of Health and 300 workers at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The spokesperson did not respond to a follow-up inquiry requesting more details of the positions eliminated and other clarifications.

Efficiency doubted

In a written statement, Andrés Arguello, a policy fellow at Groundwork Collective, a think tank focused on economic equity, said the cuts would have “the exact opposite” effect of the administration’s stated goal of government efficiency.

“Gutting 10,000 public servants means higher costs, longer wait times, and fewer services for families already struggling with the rising cost of living,” Arguello, an HHS deputy secretary under former President Joe Biden, wrote. “Entire offices that support child care, energy assistance, and mental health treatment are being dismantled, leaving working families with fewer options and bigger bills. This isn’t streamlining—it’s abandonment, and the price will be paid by the sick, the vulnerable, and the poor.”

The lack of communication led to confusion among advocates and state and local health workers about the impacts of the staff cuts and cast doubt about the administration’s goals, speakers on a Tuesday press call said.

“There are so many more questions than answers right now,” Sharon Gilmartin, the executive director of Safe States Alliance, an anti-violence advocacy group, said. “They clearly are eliminating whole divisions and branches, which doesn’t speak to bureaucratic streamlining. It speaks to moving forward an agenda, which has not been elucidated for the public health community, it’s not been elucidated for the public.”

While specific consequences of the cuts were not yet known, Gilmartin and others said they would be felt at the state and local level.

“I think what we do know is that … when we’re cutting these positions at the federal level, we are cutting work in states and communities,” Gilmartin said.

Pain in the states

The lawsuit from Democratic officials is full of details about the impacts of the loss of federal funding on state programs.

The suit was brought in Rhode Island federal court by the attorneys general of Colorado, Rhode Island, California, Minnesota, Washington, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Wisconsin and Govs. Andy Beshear of Kentucky and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania.

HHS revoked “more than half a billion dollars” of grants from Pennsylvania, the Democratic officials said, affecting more than 150 state employees and contracted staff. The grants funded work “to respond to and mitigate the spread of infectious disease across the Commonwealth” and mental health and substance abuse programs.

In Nevada, “HHS abruptly terminated at least six grants” that had funded epidemiology and lab capacity, immunization access and mental health services, according to the suit.

“These terminations led Nevada to immediately terminate 48 state employees and to order contractors working under these awards to immediately cease all activity,” the complaint reads. “The loss of funding will have substantial impacts on public health in Nevada.”

The cutoff of $13 million in unobligated grants for local communities in Minnesota will mean the shuttering of clinics to provide vaccines for COVID-19, measles, mumps, rubella, influenza and other diseases, the suit said.

“One local public health agency reported that it held 21 childhood vaccination clinics and provided approximately 1,400 vaccinations to children in 2024,” a paragraph in the complaint about Minnesota local vaccine clinics said. “It also held 87 general vaccination clinics in 2024. As a result of the termination of the … funds, it has immediately ceased all vaccination clinics for 2025.”

The grant terminations also affected state plans already in the works.

Rhode Island had received an extension from HHS for a grant with $13 million unspent, but that money was revoked last week.

“Accordingly, the state public health department developed a workplan for its immunization program that included an April 2025 vaccination clinic for seniors, provided salaries for highly trained technicians to ensure that vaccine doses are stored and refrigerated correctly to prevent waste of vaccines purchased with other tax-payer dollars, planned computer system upgrades, and covered printing costs for communications about vaccine campaigns,” the suit said.

Senators want RFK Jr. on the Hill

Democrats on Capitol Hill issued a slew of statements opposing the cuts and warning of their effects.

Republicans were more deferential to the administration, asking for patience as details of the cuts are revealed.

But the letter from the top members of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee also brought both sides together to write Kennedy asking him to testify before the committee to make those explanations plain.

“The hearing will discuss your proposed reorganization of the Department of Health and Human Services,” the letter from Louisiana Republican Bill Cassidy and Vermont independent Bernie Sanders said.

In a written statement, Cassidy said the hearing would be an opportunity for Kennedy to inform the public about the reorganization.

“The news coverage on the HHS reorg is being set by anonymous sources and opponents are setting the perceptions,” Cassidy said in a written statement. “In the confirmation process, RFK committed to coming before the committee on a quarterly basis. This will be a good opportunity for him to set the record straight and speak to the goals, structure and benefits of the proposed reorganization.”

From left, Olivia Sawyer and Jeremy Bauer-Wolf protest the U.S. Education Department’s mass layoffs during a "honk-a-thon" and rally March 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Two separate coalitions of advocacy and labor groups each filed suit against the Trump administration Monday over its sweeping efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education.

The National Education Association, NAACP, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Maryland Council 3 and public school parents filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to “immediately halt” the administration’s attempts to shutter the agency.

Meanwhile, the American Federation of Teachers, its Massachusetts chapter, AFSCME Council 93, the American Association of University Professors, the Service Employees International Union and two school districts in Massachusetts sued the administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Monday over the executive order and recent mass layoffs at the department.

NEA’s complaint argues that “if allowed to stand,” the Trump administration’s actions will “irrevocably harm” the groups, “their members and PK-12 and postsecondary education across the United States.”

The union notes that the administration “has taken drastic, escalating steps to incapacitate the Department, including cancelation of $1.5 billion in grants and contracts for the performance of core functions and mass layoffs of half its workforce.”

It adds that “these actions are unconstitutional and violate Congress’s directives in creating the Department and assigning it specific duties and appropriations,” per the complaint.

AFT’s complaint points out that “the mass removal of the individuals who do the work of the Department means that the Department will be unable to perform its statutorily mandated duties, including effectively distributing funds for students with disabilities and providing support and technical assistance to parents, families, and states to ensure those services are provided most effectively; protecting students’ civil rights; and providing financial aid for students seeking higher education.” 

AFT argues that the executive order and the department’s “final mission,” including the mass layoffs, “are unlawful and harm millions of students, school districts, and educators across the nation.”

Trump actions

President Donald Trump last week directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the department to the maximum extent that is legally permissible.

Only Congress, which established the 45-year-old department, has the power to abolish it.

The following day, Trump announced that some of the department’s key responsibilities — including its handling of the massive student loan portfolio and special education services — would be housed in the Small Business Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services, respectively.

The president also said HHS would handle “nutrition programs,” though it was unclear what he was referring to as the Department of Agriculture manages school meal and other major nutrition programs.

NEA slams ‘gutting’ of department

In a Monday statement, NEA’s president Becky Pringle said “gutting the Department of Education will hurt all students by sending class sizes soaring, cutting job training programs, making higher education more out of reach, taking away special education services for students with disabilities, and gutting student civil rights protections.”

“Parents, educators, and community leaders know this will widen the gaps in education, which is why we will do everything in our power to protect our students and their futures,” Pringle said.

Prior to the executive order, the agency already saw significant changes in the weeks since Trump took office, including mass layoffs, contract cuts, staff buyouts and major policy changes.

The department also announced earlier this month that more than 1,300 employees would be cut through a “reduction in force” process, calling into question how those mass layoffs would affect the agency’s abilities to carry out its main responsibilities.

The cuts prompted a lawsuit from a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general — who are trying to block the department from implementing the “reduction in force” action and Trump’s “directive to dismantle the Department of Education.”

White House, ED reaction

“The NEA and NAACP have done nothing to advance the educational outcomes of America’s students and the latest NAEP scores prove that,” Harrison Fields, White House principal deputy press secretary, said in a statement shared with States Newsroom. 

The latest data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress found that average math and reading scores in 2024 for pupils in fourth grade and eighth grade were lower compared to before the coronavirus pandemic, in 2019.

“Instead of playing politics with baseless lawsuits, these groups should ditch the courtroom and work with the Trump administration and states on improving the classroom,” Fields said.

“As President Trump and Secretary McMahon have made clear, sunsetting the Department of Education will be done in partnership with Congress and national and state leaders to ensure all statutorily required programs are managed responsibly and where they best serve students and families,” Madi Biedermann, a spokesperson for the Education Department, said in a statement to States Newsroom.

“The U.S. Department of Education continues to deliver on all programs that fall under the agency’s purview, including vigilantly enforcing federal civil rights laws in schools and ensuring students with special needs and disabilities have access to critical resources,” Biedermann added. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth receives a briefing from Navy Adm. Alvin Hosley at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba on Feb. 25. 2025.(Photo by Army Staff Sgt. ShaTyra Cox)

WASHINGTON — A federal district court judge late Friday denied a temporary restraining order request from legal advocacy groups seeking access to their clients while they were detained at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, following a last-minute transfer by the Trump administration.

Because there are no longer any detainees at Guantanamo, the request was denied by U.S. District of Columbia Judge Carl J. Nichols, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019.

He also denied a request in a separate suit brought before him to bar the potential transfer of 10 individual detainees to Guantanamo because it had not happened yet and therefore could not constitute irreparable harm.

“None of these 10 plaintiffs is currently detained at Guantanamo Bay,” Nichols said of the second request.

Nichols is hearing both cases related to immigration detention at Guantanamo after Trump directed his administration to prepare for up to 30,000 beds there to be used for detention space as part of his plans for mass deportations.

The first suit argued the Trump administration denied legal access to migrants at the base.

The second challenged the legal authority of the Trump administration to send immigrants on U.S. soil and without legal status to a military base outside the country.

The second suit also included the request to block 10 detainees’ potential transfer. Nichols said he was skeptical the detainees would fit the “high profile” that would warrant detention at the base.

Taken to Louisiana

The American Civil Liberties Union filed both suits on behalf of legal aid groups for the immigrants and their family members.

Within days of the hearing, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement transferred all detainees — including the ones whose family filed suits on behalf of them — from Guantanamo to the U.S. mainland in Louisiana.

The ACLU’s Lee Gelernt, who argued on behalf of the advocacy groups and families and 10 individuals, said the federal government has twice cleared out all migrants from Guantanamo just before court hearings.

Even though there are now no immigrants at the base, there is irreparable harm because detainees have been chained, strip searched and subjected to “the general trauma of being sent to a military base,” Gelernt said.

He argued that it’s unprecedented for an administration to transfer detainees already on U.S. soil to a military base.

Gelernt argued that the Trump administration was using detention at Guantanamo Bay “for general deterrence.”

He noted how highly publicized the administration had made transfers to the base, distributing photos and using military planes.

Judge skeptical

Nichols seemed skeptical the Trump administration had admitted to using detention as an immigration deterrent.

“They’re saying mass removal is the deterrent, not sending people to Gitmo,” Nichols said. 

Nichols also raised issue with the family members who filed on behalf of the men who were taken to Guantanamo Bay. He said that because those  detainees are back on U.S. soil, they should be allowed to bring their own suit.

Additionally, he said because those individuals were no longer at Guantanamo, the harm of the family members “has already subsided.”

However, Nichols said that “there’s a serious question on the government’s authority to open detention facilities (that) extends to military bases overseas.”

Nichols also told U.S. Department of Justice attorneys that the court should be notified if one of the 10 individuals in the suit trying to bar the government from sending those detainees to Guantanamo is transferred to the naval base.

Gelernt pressed to have the Department of Justice give notice before any transfer occurred, but Nichols held off on immediately doing that.

Nichols asked the Department of Justice attorneys to determine with the Department of Homeland Security how quickly a notification can be made to the court and asked them to report back an answer by Wednesday.

Last month, a judge in New Mexico blocked the Trump administration from moving three men detained in that state to Guantanamo. Less than 24 hours after the judge blocked the transfer, ICE deported the three men back to Venezuela. 

Detective Joseph Mensah (right) testifies before the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety earlier this year. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

The third day of the federal civil trial into the death of 17-year-old Alvin Cole featured testimony from Joseph Mensah, the officer who fatally shot Cole in 2020. Now a detective for the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department, Mensah was an  officer in the  Wauwatosa Police Department for five years, during which time he  killed Cole after a foot pursuit. 

Mensah testified about the shooting on Feb  2, 2020, at the Mayfair Mall, where he responded to a call about a disturbance involving a gun. Mensah visited the mall twice, leaving the area he was assigned to patrol to investigate the disturbance and then returning a second time when he heard on his radio that there was a foot chase underway. He arrived both times in an unmarked squad car and did not announce his presence on the police radio, something his colleagues described as a best practice but which he testified was unnecessary.

Mensah disagreed with the testimony of Wauwatosa officer David Shamsi, who testified that he was closest to Cole when he was shot, and that Cole was on the ground and had not moved when Mensah fired. Mensah said Shamsi was mistaken. The contradictory statements between Shamsi, Mensah (who claimed Cole turned to aim a gun at Mensah, either over or under his own shoulder) and other officers on scene including Evan Olson (who said Cole pointed the gun in a completely different direction from Mensah) created the issue that opened the door to this week’s jury trial in Milwaukee’s federal courthouse.

While Shamsi holds the rank of major in the U.S. military and is now an FBI agent, Mensah asserted that he was a new officer at the time of the shooting. Mensah said that since he had five years of experience at Wauwatosa and was SWAT trained, he had more extensive and relevant tactical knowledge and experience than Shamsi. In his deposition, referenced on the stand, Mensah said that besides Olson, none of the officers on scene during the Cole shooting — including Shamsi — had the level of training and experience that he had. Shamsi’s military combat experience “doesn’t mean anything,” he testified, “especially in a situation like this.” 

On the stand, Mensah described how he arrived at the Mayfair Mall on Feb. 2, 2020, and helped officers and mall security chase the fleeing teenagers. As they ran, a single gunshot went off — later determined to be fired by Cole and resulting in a self-inflicted gunshot wound which broke bones in Cole’s arm. When Mensah heard the shot, he pulled out his own weapon. Mensah said at that point he couldn’t recall how far he was from Cole, despite having replayed the shooting in his head repeatedly and viewed video and other reports from the shooting over the last five years. Mensah said that when the first shot went off, he didn’t see a muzzle or knew who fired. Cole fell to the ground and then 10 seconds later Mensah fired five shots. Later, he said Cole had pointed his gun in Mensah’s direction. 

Mensah said that the entire situation was “very fluid” and quick, and repeatedly said “I don’t remember” or “I don’t recall” throughout questioning from the Cole family’s  attorneys. Attorney Nate Cade referred to Mensah’s deposition testimony in 2023, in which he said he saw Cole fall to his hands and knees, and then crawl a short distance towards a concrete construction barrier in the Cheesecake Factory restaurant parking lot. Mensah said on the stand that although Cole turned towards him, he didn’t know if would  use the term “tucked” to describe his posture, as his colleague officer Olson did in testimony Tuesday. When asked if Cole reached under or over his shoulder, as he had previously testified, on the stand Mensah said, “I don’t recall.” 

Mensah testified that he only “vaguely” recalls his interview with detectives who investigated Cole’s shooting as part of the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team (MAIT). During his deposition, Mensah said that he saw a flash of light as he chased Cole, which he acknowledged could have been flashlights from officers and mall security. During his initial interview with detectives after the shooting in 2020, Mensah said he had not seen any muzzle flash, and on the stand Wednesday he said he couldn’t account for what MAIT detectives did or did not put in their report. Mensah said that once Cole was on the ground, he paused to assess his surroundings before he fired. When he saw a gun in Cole’s hand and felt it was being pointed at him, Mensah said he began to “prepare” his body to be shot, acquired his “target,” which was Cole, and then fired.

While questioning Mensah, Cade noted that several things that Mensah said he yelled to officers such as “the gun is out” — meaning he sees a firearm — are not in the police investigative report, nor does MAIT’s report mention that Mensah yelled “drop the gun” at Cole, as Mensah said he had done. Mensah said that the situation was “incredibly traumatic” to him and that when it comes to what he does and does not remember, “the brain works in mysterious ways.” 

Video and audio from Olson’s squad car captured after the shooting, played during the trial, captured someone yelling curse words, and then saying, “I can’t believe I just shot somebody.” Mensah said he could hear the curse words and acknowledged that it was him, but said that he couldn’t understand the words after that. Still, he argued that the recording did not show him saying what attorneys claimed, and that it was “random” radio chatter from other people. Cade argued that if it was Mensah saying those words, that suggests that he did not intend to shoot Cole, which he said showed that it was an instance of excessive use of force. The Cole family’s lawyers also highlighted Mensah’s statement after the shooting that “I was overwhelmed with emotions,” suggesting it showed that he had lost control. Mensah said some of his microphone equipment may have been malfunctioning, distorting the record of what he said at the time, but acknowledged that he was “amped up.” 

Cole family attorneys also brought up that Olson and Mensah had not separated themselves that night, which is required by MAIT protocols and is done to avoid contamination of statements. Mensah denied that he and Olson actually discussed anything about the shooting, and both officers said on the stand that they were friends then and remain friends today outside of work. When attorney Jasmyne Baynard, representing Mensah, questioned the officer, he said he grew up in the Wauwatosa area, and that he became an officer after seeing a friend get in trouble, and that he wanted to help people “truly in need.” He graduated from the police academy in 2012, and was hired by Wauwatosa in 2015, though he’d been an unarmed reserve officer since 2009. 

Answering questions about his actions on the night of Feb 2, 2020, Mensah said that police officers are not required to stay in their patrol sector, and that he went back to the mall after the foot pursuit was called out, because such pursuits can be unpredictable and dangerous. When he approached Cole on the ground, Mensah said he didn’t know the teen was hurt or that he’d shot himself. 

Mensah said that Cole didn’t do a “drastic turn around” to aim his gun, and that the motion he saw was “over the shoulder,” which contradicted his prior testimony. Mensah said that he couldn’t second-guess himself in the heat of the moment. “I don’t get that luxury in the fraction of a fraction of a second,” he said. 

“I’m not focusing on the gun anymore,” Mensah said, describing the moment as he prepared to fire. Instead, he said, he was focused on stopping a threat, and that he kept firing his weapon until he felt the threat was stopped. Mensah said he did not see a gun pointed at Olson, which Olson told MAIT in 2020 and testified to during the trial. During questioning, Mensah became emotional, and said, “I didn’t want to do it.” 

On the stand, Mensah was asked whether he felt either Shamsi (who didn’t see the gun or Cole move at all and was closest to Cole) or Olson (who was further away and said the gun was pointed at him, which would mean away from Mensah) were liars. Mensah said that he believes Shamsi was “mistaken” and then suggested the same about his friend Olson. Mensah said that he does not believe that he could have been wrong when he killed Cole. 

Once Mensah’s testimony concluded, Milwaukee police detective Lori Rom was called to the stand. Rom was one of the MAIT investigators initially assigned to interview officers involved in Cole’s death. Rom said that her department typically does not record officer interviews after shootings, and that had Mensah told them things like calling out that he saw the gun, or if he saw a muzzle flash, that it would have been documented as important information. Attorney Joseph Wirth, representing Mensah, noted that MAIT statements are not court statements made under oath. 

Tracy Cole, Alvin’s mother, was expected to testify, but this was not allowed after a chamber conversation between the judge and attorneys. Mensah’s defense attorneys called Sarah Hopkins, a civilian witness to the shooting to the stand next. Hopkins said she was outside the Cheesecake Factory when she saw the chase and shooting. Hopkins said she never saw Cole surrender or throw his hands up, but instead that he stopped running and turned towards officers in a shooter’s stance she recognized from taking concealed carry classes — something none of the other witnesses,  including Mensah,  said had happened. She’d initially claimed to be about 40 feet from the shooting, but later questioning determined that it had to have been at least 200 feet. Cole family attorney Cade highlighted that “we’re now in day three of trial” without anyone else having claimed to have seen what Hopkins said she saw. 

A mall security guard was also called to the stand, who helped chase after Cole and his friends. The guard said he heard a shot, saw a flash of light, and dropped to the ground. Like other witnesses, the guard said that Cole was on his hands and knees at one point, but that when he heard the first shot he got down to the ground for safety. The guard said he never saw Cole point a gun at anyone. Defense attorneys called former Green Bay police officer and Waukesha Area Technical College instructor Mike Knetzger, a certified instructor in defense and arrest tactics. Defense attorneys questioned Knetzger about use of force, noting that officers don’t need to go through each level of force before deadly force, especially if a situation happens quickly. Knetzger said that “special circumstances” such as the suspect’s behavior, could escalate the use of force. He later acknowledged, however, that shooting someone facing away from an officer without a gun pointed in their direction may not be an appropriate use of force. Knetzger said that use of force has to be considered from the perspective of a hypothetical “reasonable officer” and not specifically from the perspective of Mensah, who was the only officer on scene to fire his weapon at Cole. 

Closing arguments are expected on  Thursday, after which the jury will begin deliberations.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: < 1 minute

As Wisconsin’s attorney general, Brad Schimel helped lead a 20-state lawsuit that sought to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

The federal law, known as Obamacare, expanded health insurance coverage by offering exchanges and subsidies for individuals to buy health insurance, and in other ways.

The 2018 lawsuit argued Obamacare was made unconstitutional by a 2017 tax law change signed by President Donald Trump. Schimel at the time called Obamacare “overreaching and harmful.”

In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit. It ruled the plaintiffs didn’t have legal standing to sue. However, it didn’t decide whether Obamacare was unconstitutional.

Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate in the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, criticized Schimel’s lawsuit. Schimel is the conservative candidate.

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults have a favorable view of Obamacare; 72% of Republicans have an unfavorable view.

A record 313,579 Wisconsin residents signed up for health insurance through Obamacare during the 2025 open enrollment.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Texas attorney general: AG Pax­ton and Wis­con­sin AG File 20-State Law­suit to End the Grip of Oba­macare on Texas and the Nation
• KFF: What Is the Affordable Care Act?
• U.S. District Court: Texas, Wisconsin et al v. U.S.
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Scott Walker moves to stabilize Obamacare as AG Brad Schimel seeks to strike it down
• U.S. Supreme Court: Slip opinion — California et al v. Texas et al
• Congressional Research Service: Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to the Affordable Care Act in California v. Texas
• Civic Media: Judge Crawford Addresses Key Issues in Wisconsin Supreme Court Race
• KFF: KFF Health Tracking Poll: The Public’s Views on the ACA
• KFF: KFF Health Tracking Poll: The Public’s Views on the ACA by party ID
• Wisconsin governor: Gov. Evers, OCI Announce a Record-Breaking 313,579 Wisconsinites Enroll in Health Coverage on HealthCare.gov
• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Marketplace 2025 Open Enrollment Period Report: National Snapshot

Did Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel try to repeal the Affordable Care Act? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.