Trump Administration Opens Civil Rights Probes Into Five U.S. Medical Schools Over Admissions 
Trump Orders Section 301 Probe Into EU Tech Fines, Signals New Tariffs 
Trump Administration to Ban Chinese Robots, Power Inverters Over AI Security Concerns 
North Korea Rejects U.S. Cyber Threat Claims, Slams Allied Warning 
Warner Bros. Discovery Shares Rise as Newsom Pushes Settlement in $110 Billion Merger Fight 
Russian Air Strike on Kyiv Kills Two, Injures Dozens as Attacks Intensify 
DOJ Rescinds Anti-Weaponization Fund Ahead of Todd Blanche Senate Confirmation Vote 
Gulf Shipping Traffic Steady as U.S.-Iran Talks Remain Uncertain 
U.S. Unseals Charges Against Five Alleged CJNG Leaders, Raises Reward for New Cartel Chief 
Brazil Supreme Court Approves Probe Into Lula’s Son Over Health Ministry Lobbying Claims 
U.S., Iran, Oman Near Interim Deal to Reopen Strait of Hormuz Amid Ceasefire Efforts 
Eduardo Bolsonaro Granted U.S. Green Card Amid Brazil Legal Battle and Tariff Dispute 
Judge Approves Anthropic’s $1.5 Billion AI Copyright Settlement With Authors 
Capital One Says AML Review Led to Closure of Trump Organization Accounts 
Brazil Supreme Court Tightens Jair Bolsonaro House Arrest 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.
