Trump Suspends Some Morocco Fertilizer Tariffs to Ease U.S. Supply Shortage 
DHS Investigates Cyber Breach in Homeland Security Information-Sharing Network 
US Appeals Court Limits ICE Detention Without Bond Hearings After 90 Days 
Australia Sues Amazon Over Prime Video Ads and Subscription Terms 
HHS Watchdog Reports $5.56 Billion in Healthcare Fraud Recoveries as Enforcement Actions Decline 
Texas Man Charged After Fatal Tesla Full Self-Driving Crash in Katy 
Minnesota Wildfires Spread as Governor Tim Walz Deploys National Guard 
DOJ Subpoenas New York Times Journalists Over Air Force One Leak Report 
Super Micro Employees Detained in Taiwan AI Server Export Investigation 
Iran Says It Closes Strait of Hormuz After Warning Shot at Vessel 
Trump Administration Proposes Repeal of 702 Federal Regulations in Major Deregulation Push 
US-Iran Strikes Escalate as Strait of Hormuz Crisis Pushes Oil Prices Higher 
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham Dies at 71, Leaving South Carolina Senate Seat Vacant 
Trinidad Businessman Dominic Hadeed Appeals Detention Over Alleged Assassination Plot 
Australia Flags Child Safety Gaps at Apple, Meta, Google Over Online Sexual Extortion 
Brazil Court Bars Flavio Bolsonaro From Visiting Jair Bolsonaro Ahead of Election 
A federal judge in Minnesota has ruled that the Trump administration’s decision to assign military lawyers to assist in prosecuting civilians does not violate federal law. The decision comes from U.S. Magistrate Judge Shannon Elkins in Minneapolis, who addressed a high-profile legal challenge involving the role of Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG) attorneys in civilian criminal cases.
The case centered on Paul Johnson, a Minnesota resident charged with assaulting a Customs and Border Protection agent in January. His prosecution took place during an intensified immigration enforcement effort under former President Donald Trump’s administration. As part of that effort, the Department of Defense deployed JAG lawyers to support the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, following similar assignments in Washington, D.C., and Tennessee.
Johnson’s legal team argued that using military lawyers in civilian prosecutions without a direct military connection violates the Posse Comitatus Act. This 1878 law generally prohibits the U.S. military from engaging in civilian law enforcement activities. The defense also cited Department of Defense policies, claiming the government overstepped legal boundaries. Their position gained national attention, especially after 11 former military lawyers filed a supporting brief warning that the practice crossed a “perilous line.”
However, Judge Elkins rejected these arguments, stating that Congress has enacted laws allowing such appointments. She explained that federal statutes give the U.S. attorney general authority to designate military personnel as special assistant U.S. attorneys (SAUSAs), enabling them to prosecute civilian cases legally.
While acknowledging that Defense Department guidelines describe such assignments as potentially “ill-advised,” Elkins emphasized that these internal policies do not grant courts the authority to remove military lawyers from cases. As a result, the motion to disqualify the JAG attorney was denied.
Johnson’s attorney, Kevin Riach, has announced plans to appeal the decision. Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota has not issued a public response. This ruling could have broader implications for the use of military legal personnel in civilian justice proceedings across the United States.
