Federal judge rules Trump cannot use Alien Enemies Act to deport Tren de Aragua terrorists: 'Unlawful'



President Donald Trump issued a proclamation on March 15 invoking the Alien Enemies Act and declaring that Tren de Aragua is "a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization" aligned with the Venezuelan Maduro regime that "is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States."

"I proclaim that all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies," added Trump.

A federal judge ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump's invocation of the AEA through the proclamation was "unlawful" and barred the Trump administration from using it against Venezuelan aliens in the court's judicial district.

The administration deported at least 137 Venezuelan aliens under the law on March 15.

'The Proclamation does not suggest that they have done so through an organized armed attack.'

While claiming at the outset that neither "the Court nor the parties question the Executive Branch's authority and responsibility to enforce federal laws," U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. appears to have done just that.

The judge indicated that Trump's March 15 proclamation satisfactorily placed responsibility for Tren de Aragua's actions in the U.S. on the Venezuelan government — precluding the need to determine whether the terrorist gang represents a foreign nation or government. Rodriguez noted, however, that the activities of the terrorist gang inside the U.S. "do not fall within the plain, ordinary meaning of 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion' for the purposes of the AEA."

While Tren de Aragua terrorists might have illegally entered the nation, "harmed lives in the United States and engage in crime, the Proclamation does not suggest that they have done so through an organized armed attack, or that Venezuela has threatened or attempted such an attack through TdA members," wrote the judge.

Rodriguez concluded that "the historical record renders clear that the President's invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute's claims."

While numerous courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have blocked the Trump administration's deportations under the AEA, Rodriguez is reportedly the first judge to have reached a final decision on the merits.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the lawsuit with the ACLU of Texas to keep suspected foreign terrorists from being deported, celebrated the decision.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said in a statement, "Congress never meant for this 18th-century wartime law to be used this way. This is a critically important decision that prevents more people from being sent to the notorious CECOT prison."

Reuters indicated that neither the White House nor the Department of Justice responded to its requests for comment.

On Thursday, Rodriguez also allowed Venezuelans targeted for deportation under the AEA to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against the Trump administration, reported WFIN.com.

"The unusual circumstances of this case present a compelling justification to utilize a procedure equivalent to a class action authorized by Rule 23," wrote Rodriguez.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Wisconsin judge accused of helping illegal alien evade ICE relieved of duties



The same day that Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers' Democratic administration issued guidance directing state employees not to immediately cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan allegedly helped a previously deported illegal alien facing three misdemeanor counts of battery get away from ICE.

To the chagrin of Democratic lawmakers and fellow travelers in the judiciary, Dugan was arrested and charged with two federal criminal offenses: obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the U.S. and concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest.

'A judge shall avoid impropriety.'

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin issued an order Tuesday relieving Dugan of her duties.

"This court is charged in the Wisconsin Constitution with exercising superintending and administrative authority over the courts of this state," said the Badger State's high court. "In the exercise of that constitutional authority and in order to uphold the public's confidence in the courts of this state during the pendency of the criminal proceeding against Judge Dugan, we conclude, on our motion, that it is in the public interest that she be temporarily relieved of her official duties."

Dugan — who appears to have flouted the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly its requirement that "a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities" — is now barred from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge in the state until further order from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

According to the criminal complaint against Dugan, members of the Milwaukee ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Task Force traveled to the Milwaukee County Courthouse on April 18, 2025, with a warrant to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien from Mexico who was previously deported in 2013.

ICE was aware that Flores-Ruiz was scheduled to attend a hearing in his criminal case overseen by Dugan.

After presenting their identification to courthouse security, ICE agents — accompanied by both FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration agents — were allowed to proceed to the hallway outside Dugan's courtroom where they spoke with the courtroom deputy and agreed that Flores-Ruiz's arrest would take place after the illegal alien's court appearance.

The complaint claims that upon learning from an attorney of ICE's presence, Dugan "became visibly angry, commented that the situation was 'absurd,' left the bench, and entered chambers," while Flores-Ruiz was seated in the gallery of the courtroom.

Dugan and another judge allegedly confronted the immigration agents in the hallway and debated whether they had the appropriate warrant. After disputing the validity of their administrative warrant, Dugan allegedly demanded — across multiple interactions — that the federal agents go speak with the chief judge.

While the second judge led the arrest team away to the chief judge's office, Dugan allegedly looked around the hallway for additional agents, returned to her courtroom, told Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer something to the effect of "come with me," then "forcefully direct[ed]" the duo out the jury door, which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse. Dugan then apparently returned and conducted other hearings on the morning's docket.

'Dugan has committed herself to the rule of law.'

The incident was apparently witnessed by multiple people.

Despite Dugan's alleged obstruction, federal agents were able to apprehend Flores-Ruiz outside the courthouse.

Following Dugan's arrest on April 25, Attorney General Pam Bondi noted, "No one is above the law."

The judge's next court appearance is scheduled for May 15. If convicted, Dugan could land up to six years in prison.

Dugan's attorney, former United States Attorney Steven Biskupic, said she will "defend herself vigorously and looks forward to being exonerated," reported ABC News.

"Judge Hannah C. Dugan has committed herself to the rule of law and the principles of due process for her entire career as a lawyer and a judge," stated Biskupic.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump admin appeals ruling granting Associated Press access to 'the President's most intimate spaces'



A federal court granted the Associated Press an injunction Wednesday preventing the Trump administration from excluding it from press events at the White House.

U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, ordered White House officials to rescind the denial of the AP's access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other spaces based on the liberal news organization's viewpoints.

"The AP seeks restored eligibility for admission to the press pool and limited-access press events, untainted by an impermissible viewpoint-based exclusion," wrote McFadden.

"That is all the Court orders today: For the Government to put the AP on an equal playing field as similarly situated outlets, despite the AP's use of disfavored terminology," continued the judge. "The Court does not order the Government to grant the AP permanent access to the Oval Office, the East Room, or any other media event. It does not bestow special treatment upon the AP."

The Trump administration is appealing the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

'We're going to keep them out.'

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump directed Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum to "take all appropriate actions to rename as the 'Gulf of America' the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico."

Trump celebrated the name change by declaring Feb. 9 the first ever Gulf of America Day.

Despite the U.S. government's renaming of the body of water, the AP persisted in calling it the "Gulf of Mexico" both in its reporting and in its style guide, which is used by journalists around the world.

This armchair subversion did not go over well with the Trump White House.

Blaze News previously reported that Trump told reporters when asked about restrictions on the AP, "We're going to keep them out until such time that they agree that it's the Gulf of America."

'It also exposes the Associated Press' commitment to misinformation.'

Trump also took shots at "The Associated Press Stylebook," noting, "I do think that some of the phrases they want to use are ridiculous, and I think, frankly, they’ve become obsolete, especially in the last three weeks."

According to court documents, Leavitt told AP chief White House correspondent Zeke Miller on Feb. 11 that "at President Trump's direction, the AP would no longer be permitted in the Oval Office as part of the press pool until and unless the AP revised its Stylebook."

Days later Leavitt noted that the AP was "not invited" to the Oval Office to cover Trump signing a pair of executive orders. Sure enough, AP journalists found themselves barred from other numerous events.

'It does not ensure their privilege of unfettered access to limited spaces.'

When the AP complained, White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich stated, "The Associated Press continues to ignore the lawful geographic name change of the Gulf of America. This decision is not just divisive, but it also exposes the Associated Press' commitment to misinformation."

While there are plenty of examples, Budowich's allusion to "misinformation" may be in reference to the AP's

  • false report about an explosion that took place Oct. 7, 2023, outside the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza, which it blamed on Israel as opposed to the Islamic terrorists responsible;
  • false report claiming that U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin "very good friends";
  • deceptive framing of Vice President JD Vance's speech concerning a Georgia school shooting;
  • false election-time claim about Project 2025 being the "Republican blueprint for a second Trump term in the White House"; or
  • its false report that Russia fired a missile into Poland.

"While their right to irresponsible and dishonest reporting is protected by the First Amendment, it does not ensure their privilege of unfettered access to limited spaces, like the Oval Office and Air Force One," continued Budowich. "Going forward, that space will now be opened up to the many thousands of reporters who have been barred from covering these intimate areas of the administration."

The AP filed a lawsuit against Trump administration officials on Feb. 21 accusing Budowich, Leavitt, and chief of staff Susie Wiles of "coercing journalists to report the news using only government-approved language."

The lawsuit proved successful.

McFadden noted in his ruling Wednesday that while he was granting the AP its requested injunction, it "does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events."

"It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces," continued the judge. "It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views."

Lauren Easton, a spokeswoman for the AP, stated, "We are gratified by the court's decision."

"Today's ruling affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation. This is a freedom guaranteed for all Americans in the U.S. Constitution," added Easton.

The Trump administration has requested a stay of the injunction pending the outcome of its appeal.

An attorney for the government noted in a court motion Thursday that McFadden's injunction "constitutes an unprecedented intrusion into Executive authority."

"For the first time in history, and inconsistent with D.C. Circuit precedent ... a court issued an order to control access to the President's most intimate spaces: his personal workspace (the Oval Office), his means of transportation (Air Force One), and his personal home (the Mar-a-Lago Club)," wrote U.S. Attorney Brian Hudak.

Hudak further noted that the government has not restricted the AP's speech, just denied it "special access to the president's personal and private spaces."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How a Hollywood hairstylist's murder by wife's ex-porn star lover revealed secrets, lust, and desire for life insurance payday



More than eight years have passed since a popular Hollywood hairstylist was stabbed to death on the patio of his home in an affluent San Fernando Valley neighborhood outside Los Angeles, California.

Now a high-profile murder trial has opened — and it has revealed secrets, lust, and a desire for a huge life insurance payday, all stemming from a deadly love triangle.

'Deny everything and don’t talk.'

Celebrity hairstylist Fabio Sementilli, 49, was found bleeding to death on the patio of his Woodland Hills home on Jan. 23, 2017. His 16-year-old daughter Isabella called 911 while trying in vain to save her father.

Sementilli suffered seven sharp force wounds to his face, jawline, chest, neck, arm, and thigh — and his wounds proved fatal.

Initially, police believed the stabbing death was connected to burglars who had committed a string of home thefts in the San Fernando Valley. The bedroom of Sementilli's home was ransacked, and his Porsche was stolen. The vehicle was found abandoned two days after his murder about five miles from the crime scene.

However, detectives noted that the alleged burglars didn't steal the Hollywood hairstylist's $8,000 Rolex watch — it was still on his wrist.

A neighbor's security camera also captured video of two hooded figures running near Sementilli's house around the time of the slaying.

In addition, on the day Fabio Sementilli was murdered, a neighbor's security camera caught his 52-year-old wife, Monica Sementilli, driving her black Ford F-150 pickup truck. Prosecutors said she drove to a Target retail store, and video appeared to show an individual getting into her truck in the parking lot.

Prosecutors accused Monica Sementilli of making a trip to Target to establish her alibi, according to CBS News.

Another man emerges

Detectives discovered that Monica Sementilli had a close relationship with Robert Louis Baker — a former porn star and convicted sex offender.

The pair reportedly met at the West Hills L.A. Fitness, where Baker was a racquetball coach.

Police said Monica Sementilli and Baker were seen together in cars, bars, a comedy club, and on two trips to Las Vegas, as well as an excursion to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

LAPD detectives hatched a plan to secretly listen to Monica and Baker from a van parked near the home she previously shared with her late husband.

With that, police pulled over the pair when Baker was driving Monica's black Ford Mustang GT on June 14, 2017 — less than six months after the murder. Officers allegedly told the couple that the car they were in might have been stolen. Monica and Baker were handcuffed and placed in the back seat of a police cruiser.

But little did the pair know that cops had wired the police vehicle to record their conversation.

Monica was recorded telling Baker, "Somebody must have talked. Somebody is doing this to us."

She also reportedly told him, “Deny everything and don’t talk.”

'Prosecutors have argued that Monica Sementilli "was the mastermind" of the plot to kill her husband, a Canadian hairstylist and executive of the German hair-care giant, Wella.'

The pair was arrested and taken to the LAPD Van Nuys Station for questioning.

On the day of her arrest, a detective told Monica that Baker's blood was found inside her home.

She allegedly said she "cracked" Baker on the finger with a racquet and he bled all over a racquetball court. Monica added that she gave him a towel and then brought that bloody towel home with her.

Investigators allegedly found DNA belonging to Baker at the crime scene. What's more, his DNA already was in a police database because he was a registered sex offender after being convicted for lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor in 1993.

According to prosecutors, Baker cut his left index finger when he killed Fabio.

The Los Angeles Times reported, "In more than 50 days of trial, prosecutors have argued that Monica Sementilli 'was the mastermind' of the plot to kill her husband, a Canadian hairstylist and executive of the German hair-care giant, Wella. Her goal was to pocket $1.6 million in life insurance and avoid the complications of getting a divorce, prosecutors allege."

Prosecutors also pointed out that Monica Sementilli upgraded the security camera system at her home six months before Fabio's brutal murder — but the upgrade allegedly allowed her to remotely access her surveillance cameras from her cell phone.

Prosecutors accused her of forwarding the security camera system's log-in credentials and user manual to Baker on the same day of the upgrade.

At the time Fabio Sementilli was killed, phone records reportedly showed Monica Sementilli's iPhone was connected to her home's IP address and that the phone was consuming a large amount of data consistent with streaming live video.

Prosecutors allege that she was watching live video from her home security cameras.

According to the indictment, detectives discovered thousands of phone calls and text messages exchanged between Monica and the ex-porn star.

During a grand jury hearing in August 2017, friends of Monica Sementilli and Baker testified that they went out on double dates and saw affectionate behavior between the pair.

Baker also allegedly admitted to buying burner phones — one of which was in Monica’s purse when she was arrested in her Ford Mustang GT.

Deputy District Attorney Beth Silverman spotlighted that Monica Sementilli actually used the burner phone during her late husband's funeral proceedings in his hometown of Toronto, Canada.

Baker also allegedly admitted that Monica Sementilli sent him naked photos of herself with her wedding ring still on her finger shortly after her husband's murder.

“Everyone grieves differently,” Baker proclaimed.

At the conclusion of the grand jury hearing, Monica Sementilli and Baker both were indicted for murder and conspiracy, and they both pleaded not guilty to the murder of Fabio Sementilli.

However, Baker on July 7, 2023, changed his plea in connection with the hairstylist's murder from not guilty to no contest.

Baker was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

An alleged accomplice surfaces

Police determined that Christopher Austin, a parole officer in Oregon, was Baker's accomplice in killing Fabio.

Detectives said Baker transferred money between two of his bank accounts for Austin. Baker also bought an airline ticket for Austin to travel from Anchorage, Alaska, to Los Angeles before the slaying, according to the police.

Austin was arrested in October 2024 and then convicted of second-degree murder in connection with his role in the killing.

He is scheduled for sentencing next month and is facing up to 16 years in prison.

Austin said he and Baker had been to Sementilli's house before and knew the layout — and Austin also told the jury that Baker revealed to him a crucial piece of information.

He said Baker "told me ... she is gonna leave the door unlocked," and Austin allegedly testified that he opened the patio door and grabbed Fabio Sementilli by the mouth to muffle any screams while Baker repeatedly stabbed him.

In addition, Austin reportedly told the jury that the hairstylist’s widow “wanted him dead” so she could collect the life insurance payout and avoid a messy divorce.

But Baker testified at Monica Sementilli's trial last week that she had nothing to do with her husband's murder.

“I murdered him because I wanted her,” Baker told jurors in a Los Angeles courtroom. "She had nothing to do with it."

You can view video here of Baker explaining in court why he killed Fabio Sementilli.

Monica Sementilli’s attorney, Blair Berk, said during opening statements that there was no evidence that her client plotted to kill Fabio Sementilli.

"There is no statement, no text, no recorded phone call,” Berk said, adding that Monica Sementilli was “duped into believing that Robert Baker” didn’t do it.

Despite Baker being in prison, the pair reportedly continued to communicate via three-way calls using a third-party number.

"Baker acknowledged that in one secret message sent to him in prison, Monica Sementilli asked him to send her something personal of his," the Los Angeles Times reported. "Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies later seized a toothpaste tube that contained Baker’s semen, and prosecutors say he intended to have it delivered to the defendant."

Monica Sementilli, through her attorneys, has maintained her claim that she had no part in her husband's death.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Woke Biden judge blocks Trump ban of transvestites in military, fueling concerns over judicial overreach: 'Lunacy'



Democrat-appointed activist judges appear eager to prevent the democratically elected president from exercising his constitutional authority and realizing his popular agenda.

In the latest instance of judicial overreach, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — a Biden-appointed lesbian judge who previously worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration's immigration policy — decided to indefinitely block the implementation of the second Trump administration's ban on transvestites in the military, suggesting it likely violated their constitutional rights.

At issue in Talbott v. Trump, a case brought by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, is Trump's Jan. 27 executive titled "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness" and the resulting Pentagon guidance.

Trump underscored in his order that the military's policy to establish "high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity" is incompatible with the accommodations sought and health constraints faced by gender-dysphoric individuals.

Trump added that those "expressing a false 'gender identity'" at odds with their actual sex "cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service" and cannot satisfy the soldier's "commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle."

The Pentagon's new guidance states:

Military service by Service members and applicants for military service who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria is incompatible with military service. Service by these individuals is not in the best interests of the Military Services and is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security. Individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are no longer eligible for military service.

Reyes, formerly of the Feminist Majority Foundation, acknowledged in her Tuesday ruling that Trump has the "power — indeed the obligation — to ensure military readiness." However, she figured that it was nevertheless her job to interfere, both characterizing Trump's exercise of presidential authority as an attempt to "deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving" and glossing over the military's prohibition on other medically and mentally compromised individuals enlisting, including those found to be on medications, women with abnormal uterine bleeding, men with deformed genitals, those with chronic anxiety, those who have committed self-harm, and those who have met in the past with psychiatrists.

Reyes suggested in her ruling that it was her responsibility as a judge to keep the executive branch in its proper place, despite acknowledging the "pernicious" nature of judicial overreach.

'Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be.'

Reyes suggested further that the "Military Ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext. Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact."

Reyes clearly did not bother shrouding her animus toward the Trump administration in the ruling or during past hearings.

The foreign-born judge previously suggested that Trump, through his executive order directing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to update military policy to effectively ban medical and cosmetic transvestites from the military, was "literally erasing transgender people." In addition to claiming that Pete Hegseth, a recipient of two Bronze Stars, had no military experience, Reyes also tried to dunk on the administration with a bizarre distortion of Christian teaching, asking Justice Department attorney Jason Lynch how Jesus Christ would respond to Trump's order — prompting a misconduct complaint.

Fresh off condemning one Obama judge for preventing President Donald Trump from deporting terrorists under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and another Obama judge for "appoint[ing] himself king of foreign policy," Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, asked, "Is there no end to this madness?"

After noting that district court judges "have now decided they are in command of the Armed Forces," Miller likened the actions taken by Reyes and other activist judges to "Marxist university professors being able to unilaterally veto, edit or override the exercise of presidential authority."

"Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief," wrote Miller. "Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing and national security policies of the Administration. Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be. It is madness. It is lunacy. It is pure lawlessness. It is the gravest assault on democracy. It must and will end."

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk noted, "We either have a presidency or we have a rule by 677 gavel-wielding dictators."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded, "We don't play 'Hail to the Chief' when they enter the courtroom."

An analysis of nationwide injunctions issued between 2001 and 2023 published last year in the Harvard Law Review revealed that Democrat-appointed judges zealously tried to hamstring the first Trump administration. Of a total of 96 injunctions issued across four administrations, the Trump administration was slapped with 64. Of those 64 injunctions, 59 were issued by judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Over 50% of all injunctions issued since 1963 were issued against Trump administration policies.

It appears that Reyes and some of her peers are keen to pick up where their fellow travelers left off.

When the first Trump administration passed a ban on transvestites in the military, the Supreme Court let it take effect in 2019. It did not, however, rule on its constitutionality. Reyes' latest effort to undermine the president may pave the way to such a ruling.

The Pentagon has until Friday to ask a higher court to stay Reyes' order. Failing that, it can appeal.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Judicial Org Ignored Threats To Judges Until ‘Threats’ Affected Constitution Haters

There are too many examples of judicial corruption for anyone to believe the judiciary is the one segment in the world free of malfeasance.

Blaze News original: 'Barbaric' attacker destroys elderly pro-lifer's face outside Planned Parenthood. Victim awaits justice.



Mark Crosby's life changed forever on May 26, 2023.

On that day, a then-unknown assailant brutally attacked Crosby and fellow pro-life advocate Dick Schaefer outside a Planned Parenthood in downtown Baltimore.

The attacker's attorney added that his client 'didn’t mean to hurt them that bad' and 'made a mistake,' the Banner reported.

Both men had been praying, holding pro-life signs, and offering pro-life materials to people entering the abortion facility, Catholic Review said, adding that Crosby and Schaefer — both retired — do that five days each week between 9 and 11 a.m.

The bearded suspect, who was arguing with Schaefer about abortion, is seen on surveillance video charging into Schaefer — who was 84 years old at the time — and tackling him backward him into a flower pot. According to WBAL-TV, a witness said the attacker knocked Schaefer out cold "for several minutes."

The video shows Crosby — who was 73 years old at the time — running over to help Schaefer, but the suspect easily knocks Crosby down to the sidewalk before punching Crosby in the head, kicking Crosby in the face, and then walking away. You can view a video report here about the attack.

Local pro-life advocate John Roswell told LifeSiteNews at the time that Crosby’s “plate bone in his upper right cheek is completely fractured” and that he “is bleeding from some unidentified area behind his eye, and the bone eye orbit is completely shattered and will have to be replaced with metal.”

Crosby told Blaze News in an interview this month that he was blind in his right eye "for nine days" after the attack, spent three days at the Maryland Shock Trauma Center, was "spitting blood," and that a piece of his iris is missing.

He also told Blaze News he still experiences foreign body sensation, which is a "feeling that something's in your eye and you can't get it out. But I can live with that. Babies are being murdered. I give it up for them."

Finally, an arrest — more than a year later

On July 1, 2024 — more than a year later — police arrested Baltimore resident Patrick Brice in connection with the attack on Crosby and Schaefer.

Brice was indicted on charges of first-degree assault, second-degree assault, and assault on an elderly person 65 and over, according to the American Center for Law and Justice. He was released on his own recognizance, Catholic Review said.

The criminal trial for Brice took place earlier this month in Baltimore Circuit Court. The Baltimore Banner reported that Brice, 28, exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and did not testify.

But his attorney — Assistant Public Defender Matthew Connell — argued that his client didn't intend to cause serious physical injury, which is needed to support a conviction for first-degree assault, the Banner said.

'Mr. Brice is a grown man. He’s not a child. He knew what he was doing.'

Connell also called Schaefer and Crosby “old white men” who say “the most vile things” to women and see themselves as “religious martyrs," Catholic Review reported.

“Somebody snapped on them,” Connell argued, according to the Banner.

The attacker's attorney added that his client “didn’t mean to hurt them that bad" and “made a mistake," the Banner reported.

Crosby told Blaze News that video of Brice's beatdown of Crosby and Schaefer was shown in court and that one juror was "crying," while "others were looking away" from the violence onscreen.

Assistant State’s Attorney Ashley Sudberry in her opening remarks called Brice's attack “brazen, callous, barbaric behavior," Catholic Review said. Sudberry noted throughout her closing argument that "you saw what you saw, and you heard what you heard," the Banner reported.

Sudberry added that "Mr. Brice is a grown man. He’s not a child. He knew what he was doing," the Banner said.

Hung jury on most serious charge for attack on Crosby

The jury deliberated for about two hours and convicted Brice on two counts of second-degree assault and reckless endangerment for his attacks on Schaefer and Crosby, the Banner said.

However, jurors acquitted Brice on one count of first-degree assault against Schaefer, the paper said.

As for the first-degree assault charge against Brice for attacking Crosby — knocking him to the ground, punching him in his head, and kicking him in his face while he was on his back on the sidewalk — the Banner said the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

Attorney Terrell Roberts — retained by the Thomas More Society to assist Crosby amid deliberations — told Blaze News that as things stand, Brice could walk away from all of this with nothing but probation.

Crosby told Blaze News that he's prayed for Brice and has 'forgiven him,' but he wants prosecutors to go for the first-degree assault conviction for the violence he carried out: 'We're waiting for Brice to go to jail.'

Brice's convictions for second-degree assault and reckless endangerment — both misdemeanors — in Maryland carry maximum jail sentences of 10 years and five years, respectively.

Roberts added to Blaze News that sentencing guidelines for second-degree assault and reckless endangerment don't include jail sentences, and the Banner reported that Brice has no previous criminal record. Roberts told Blaze News that while Brice's attack on Crosby was a "pretty egregious act," there's a "good chance" a judge may not sentence Brice to any jail time.

Which is why Roberts told Blaze News it's "so important" that Brice is found guilty of the first-degree assault charge against Crosby. It's a felony and a "serious offense," Roberts said, and means "intent to cause serious bodily injury," which could land Brice in jail for 25 years. Roberts also told Blaze News that the sentencing guideline for first-degree assault does call for a jail sentence.

Now what?

The Banner reported that it wasn't immediately clear whether prosecutors intend to retry the first-degree assault charge against Brice.

James Bentley, a spokesperson for the Baltimore State’s Attorney’s Office, told the paper that it's “reviewing the matter and will take whatever action we believe is warranted following that review and consultation with the victim.”

Roberts told Blaze News he believes there's sufficient evidence to find Brice guilty of first-degree assault and that he's pressing the prosecution to retry the charge and argue the case in court.

But so far there's been "no progress," Roberts said, adding to Blaze News that he was supposed to hear back from prosecutors on Feb. 21, but as of the late afternoon that date, he had not.

Brice is scheduled to be sentenced March 20 on his second-degree assault and reckless endangerment convictions, the Banner said.

Crosby told Blaze News that he's prayed for Brice and has "forgiven him" but wants prosecutors to go for the first-degree assault conviction for the violence he carried out: "We're waiting for Brice to go to jail."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Brooklyn Jail Apparently Overflowing With Fan Mail For Accused CEO Killer Beloved By Leftists

'Overwhelming generosity'

Penn Professor's Fight for Free Speech Heads to Federal Court

Amy Wax, the tenured law professor who was sanctioned for her controversial remarks about racial issues, sued the University of Pennsylvania on Thursday for breach of contract and race discrimination, putting a dispute over tenure and academic freedom that has dragged on for almost three years into the hands of a federal court. The complaint comes after Wax was suspended for a year at half-pay and stripped of her named chair, penalties the lawsuit says are "illegal multiple times over."

The post Penn Professor's Fight for Free Speech Heads to Federal Court appeared first on .

Trump Receives No Penalties in New York Hush Money Case

President-elect Donald Trump will face no jail time or financial penalties in his New York hush money case, as the judge presiding over the trial issued an unconditional discharge on Friday.

The post Trump Receives No Penalties in New York Hush Money Case appeared first on .