US House Advances $70 Billion Immigration Enforcement Budget Plan 
Medicare to Cover GLP-1 Weight-Loss and Diabetes Drugs Starting July 1 
Taiwan Court Fines Tokyo Electron Unit $4.78M in Major TSMC Trade Secrets Case 
Trump Expands Cuba Sanctions Targeting Key Sectors and Foreign Entities 
Federal Appeals Court Allows Texas SB4 Immigration Law Enforcement to Proceed 
US Freezes $344M in Crypto Linked to Iran Amid Escalating Sanctions 
U.S. Warns Allies Over Alleged Chinese AI IP Theft Linked to DeepSeek 
Judge Orders Release of Family After Longest ICE Detention Under Trump Administration 
Cuba Condemns New U.S. Sanctions, Calls Measures “Collective Punishment” 
U.S. Budget Airlines Seek $2.5 Billion Government Aid Amid Rising Jet Fuel Costs 
Trump Administration Seeks Emergency Order to Resume White House Ballroom Construction 
US Gaza Coordination Overhaul Raises Concerns Over Ceasefire and Aid Efforts 
Anthropic Fights Pentagon Blacklisting in Dual Federal Court Battles 
Epstein Files: Key Figures Named in DOJ Document Release 
U.S. Military Presence in Germany Strengthens NATO Readiness and Training 
Comey Faces Charges Over Instagram Post as Free Speech Debate Intensifies 
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.
