Putin Holds ‘Highly Useful’ Ukraine Peace Talks With Trump Envoys 
Kyiv Mothers Give Birth Amid Russian Drone Attacks 
Bashar al-Assad Sentenced to Death by Syrian Court 
SEC Probes Banks Over Situational Awareness Hedge Fund Collapse 
29 US states are suing Meta. What might it mean for the rest of the world? 
Trump Orders U.S. Navy to Return to Steam Catapults for Aircraft Carriers 
Sara Duterte Posts Bail Over Grave Threats Case 
US Tightens Cuba Sanctions, Targets Officials and State Entities 
Japan, U.S. Stay Aligned on Yen as Currency Surges 
Lavrov Accuses Germany of ‘Declaring War’ on Russia 
Russia Seeks to Claw Back Soldier Bonuses After Crimes 
Trump Signs Order to Cut Routine Childhood Vaccines 
New Zealand Labour Backs Social Media Ban for Under-16s 
US Sailor’s Father Detained by Immigration Authorities 
New Mexico Sues DOJ Over Unredacted Jeffrey Epstein Files Amid Ongoing Investigation 
U.S. Probes Apex Logistics Over Nvidia AI Chip Shipments to China 
Add as a preferred source on Google
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.
