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.


California AG Subpoenas OpenAI Over AI Cybersecurity Incidents
TSA Removes Chairs for Airport ID Check Officers
Malaysia Begins Deportation of 1,500 Myanmar Nationals
Paramount-Warner Bros $110 Billion Deal Draws Antitrust Backlash
China Cuts Tariffs on U.S. Farm Goods but Excludes Soybeans
Iran Keeps Strait of Hormuz Closed as War Talks Stall
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Restore Third-Country Deportations
White House Blames Democrats as CLARITY Act Stalls
India-US Trade Deal Talks Hit Plateau, Sitharaman Says
Judge Blocks Trump Election Conditions on Counterterrorism Grants
Australia Probes Flydubai Co-Pilot’s Links After FZ1073 Hijack Attempt
CNN, Politico and MS NOW Seek Court Order Blocking Trump White House Ban
Nicaragua Withdraws From Central American Parliament
Iran Faces Rising Pressure as U.S. Builds Military Presence
Colombia Extradites FARC Dissident Leader ‘Spider’ to US
HUTCHMED, AstraZeneca Seek FDA Approval for Lung Cancer Combo
Rodrigo Duterte Makes First Public Appearance at ICC in 18 Months 



