红杏视频

McALLEN, Texas 鈥� Attorneys for Lizelle Gonzalez 鈥� a Texas woman who was unlawfully arrested and charged with murder for having a medication abortion 鈥� asked a federal court today to deny Starr County officials鈥� attempts to evade accountability for her wrongful arrest, prosecution, and the trauma that followed. The brief supporting Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 opposition to the officials鈥� motions for summary judgement contains damning evidence of misconduct, hypocrisy, and illegality by Starr County officials. The Starr County district attorney, assistant district attorney, and sheriff pursued and then obtained an unlawful indictment against Gonzalez even though they knew that Texas law clearly prohibits the criminal prosecution of pregnant women for conduct that ends their pregnancies. Throughout this process, Starr County officials repeatedly and knowingly violated Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 constitutional rights and attempted to hide their actions. 鈥淟izelle Gonzalez鈥檚 highly personal decision regarding her pregnancy was not, and never has been, a criminal matter 鈥� yet the Starr County District Attorney, his assistant district attorneys, the Starr County Sheriff鈥檚 Office ignored the clear language of the Texas homicide statute and long standing law to wrongly charge her with murder,鈥� said Cecilia Garza, partner at Garza Martinez and local counsel for Lizelle Gonzalez. 鈥淭hese officials abused their power and intentionally violated Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 fundamental rights. Their wonton disregard for the rule of law and erroneous belief of their own invincibility is a frightening deviation from the offices鈥� purposes: to seek justice. I am proud to represent Ms. Gonzalez in her fight for justice and redemption, and our team will not allow these abuses to continue in Starr County or any other county in the state of Texas.鈥� The civil lawsuit, brought by the 红杏视频 (红杏视频), the 红杏视频 of Texas, and local firm Garza Martinez seeks to ensure that those entrusted with enforcing our criminal laws face consequences when they abuse their power and violate the constitutional rights of their community members. While the district attorney ultimately dismissed the charge against Ms. Gonzalez, her arrest on a homicide charge was highly publicized and deeply traumatizing. She spent three days in jail, away from her children, before the $500,000 bond was posted for her release. As a result of the false accusation and wrongful arrest, Lizelle Gonzalez鈥檚 life has been forever changed. Following the dismissal, the Texas bar investigated the district attorney for knowingly pursuing an unlawful indictment and made multiple findings of misconduct related to charging Ms. Gonzalez with homicide. Despite these findings, the district attorney received a minimal punishment: a small fine and a one-year fully probated suspension. Without real accountability, Starr County鈥檚 District Attorney 鈥� and any other law enforcement actor 鈥� will not be deterred from abusing their power to unlawfully target people because of their personal beliefs, rather than the law. In July 2024, the court denied Starr County officials鈥� attempts to have this case dismissed. The prosecutors and sheriff raised claims of legal immunity, a doctrine that they argue should insulate them from being held accountable for violating Gonzalez鈥檚 constitutional rights. Immunity doctrines create a culture in police departments and prosecutor offices where public officials may feel empowered to violate people鈥檚 rights, knowing they will face few, if any, consequences. The court denied their motions to dismiss, allowing Gonzalez鈥檚 case to proceed to the first stage of discovery concerning whether law enforcement can be held liable for violating her rights. As detailed in Gonzalez鈥檚 brief, the discovery obtained over the last year reveals a coordinated effort between the Starr County Sheriff鈥檚 Office and District Attorney鈥檚 Office to violate Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 rights and exposes misconduct by government officials who think the law they are entrusted to enforce does not apply to them. 鈥淟izelle Gonzalez鈥檚 life has been forever changed by the cruel and unconstitutional actions of Starr County鈥檚 elected officials,鈥� said Lauren Johnson, director of the 红杏视频 Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative. 鈥淟izelle deserves justice for the trauma they have caused her and her family 鈥� and each of us deserve to be free of targeting by officials who ignore the law to unlawfully charge and arrest based on personal beliefs. We will continue fighting against the criminalization of people for the private decisions they make related to their pregnancy.鈥� 鈥淪tarr County prosecutors and law enforcement ignored Texas law when they wrongfully arrested Lizelle Gonzalez for ending her pregnancy,鈥� said Sarah Corning, an attorney at the 红杏视频 of Texas. 鈥淭hey shattered her life in South Texas, violated her rights, and abused the power they swore to uphold. Texas law is clear: a pregnant person cannot be arrested and prosecuted for getting an abortion. No one is above the law, including officials entrusted with enforcing it.鈥�

WASHINGTON 鈥� President Trump signed an executive order today directing states to criminalize unhoused people and institutionalize people with mental health disabilities and substance use disorder. The order, titled 鈥淓nding Crime and Disorder on American Streets,鈥� directs the Justice Department to expand indefinite forced treatment for people with mental health disabilities or substance use disorder, and those living on the street who 鈥渃annot care for themselves.鈥� The order also purports to eliminate federal funding for evidence-based programs, like harm reduction and housing first, that save lives, and directs federal funds toward cities and states that criminalize substance use disorder, punish people for sleeping outdoors, or enforce other laws targeting unhoused people. The order also calls for sweeping federal data collection on unhoused people and those with mental health disabilities, raising serious concerns about surveillance, privacy, and how such data could be used to justify further criminalization. Instead of funding services or support, the administration is prioritizing profiling and control. Scout Katovich, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频鈥檚 Trone Center for Justice and Equality, issued the following statement in response to the executive order: 鈥淔rom the so-called 鈥楤ig Beautiful Bill鈥� that will strip health care from millions to this dangerous executive order, every action this administration takes displays remarkable disdain for the rights and dignity of vulnerable people. 鈥淧ushing people into locked institutions and forcing treatment won鈥檛 solve homelessness or support people with disabilities. The exact opposite is true 鈥� institutions are dangerous and deadly, and forced treatment doesn鈥檛 work. We need safe, decent, and affordable housing as well as equal access to medical care and voluntary, community-based mental health and evidence-based substance use treatment from trusted providers. But instead of investing in these proven solutions, President Trump is blaming individuals for systemic failures and doubling down on policies that punish people with nowhere else to go 鈥� all after signing a law that decimates Medicaid, the number one payer for addiction and mental health services. 鈥淗omelessness is a policy failure. Weaponizing federal funding to fuel cruel and ineffective approaches to homelessness won鈥檛 solve this crisis.鈥�

This case asks whether a 12-year-old boy was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings during a closed-door police interrogation by a school resource officer in the school building. The court of appeals held that he was not in custody, not entitled to Miranda warnings, and voluntarily incriminated himself. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and the 红杏视频 of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that admitting the boy鈥檚 statements into evidence not only violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rest its decision on the state charter to better protect Wisconsinites鈥� civil liberties.

WASHINGTON 鈥� The Supreme Court ruled today that the sentencing reductions under the First Step Act of 2018 apply to people whose pre-Act sentences are vacated and who are subject to resentencing after the law鈥檚 enactment. The First Step Act was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2018 to reduce the federal prison population, reform extreme sentencing laws, and expand rehabilitation and reentry programs. Among its provisions, the law significantly lowered mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug and firearm offenses. Today鈥檚 decision means that people who were originally sentenced prior to the First Step Act but resentenced after the law鈥檚 effective date can benefit from these critical sentencing reforms. 鈥淔or many people facing extreme sentences of 50-plus years, applying the First Step Act can be the difference between dying in prison and having a chance to return home,鈥� said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the 红杏视频鈥檚 Criminal Law Reform Project. 鈥淭he First Step Act was a landmark achievement in federal sentencing reform, and this decision ensures that it will mitigate extreme and outdated sentencing laws for more people. The 红杏视频 was vocal about supporting the First Step Act when it was passed, and we continue to advocate for the law to be fully implemented as Congress intended.鈥� 鈥淲e hail today鈥檚 decision in Hewitt as a win for the common-sense sentencing reform Congress enacted with the First Step Act,鈥� said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the 红杏视频. 鈥淛ustice Jackson, writing for the majority, speaks with the authority of a federal sentencing expert, and the language and purpose of the statute has always been clear. Individuals who are being resentenced get the benefit of Congress鈥檚 reform.鈥� The 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Texas, CATO Institute, Due Process Institute, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and FAMM, working with Covington & Burling, filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners who sought application of the First Step Act in their cases and resolution of a split in the courts of appeals on the law鈥檚 reach in cases like theirs. The question at issue is of exceptional importance to people facing resentencing, and applying the First Step Act in these cases is consistent with Congress鈥� intent. This case is part of the 红杏视频鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket. The amicus brief can be found here.