Mangino joins Law & Crime Network to discuss located runaway teen

I joined Angenette Levy on Law & Crime Network  to discuss South Carolina runaway teen.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Now Is Not the Time To Test the Limits of Free Speech

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
January 6, 2026

Israeli billionaire Shlomo Kramer recently suggested on CNBC's "Money Movers" that governments must restrict freedom of speech in the age of Artificial Intelligence."

You're seeing the polarization in countries that allow for the First Amendment and protect it, which is great. And I know it's difficult to hear, but it's time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it," he said.

Kramer was speaking, generally, of countries that protect freedom of speech and expression in their constitutions and not just America's First Amendment.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, along with nine other amendments to the U.S. Constitution referred to as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Those 45 words lay the groundwork for some of our most cherished and fundamental rights — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right to assemble.

In 1919, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes established the clear-and-present-danger test: "whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent." This is the opinion where Holmes declared the now-famous example of unprotected speech — falsely crying "fire" in a crowded theater.

So, clearly not all speech is protected under the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not simply say that if words are involved, you cannot be held responsible for their consequences.

The First Amendment restricts government censorship, not rules set by private companies or employers. That means private platforms, employers, or TV networks can set their own rules about what employees or users can say, as long as those rules are made free from government interference or pressure.

Recently, late-night host Jimmy Kimmel was temporarily taken off the air after the government threatened to retaliate against ABC, his employer. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr criticized one of Kimmel's monologues about the killing of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk.

Carr specifically called on ABC affiliates to inform ABC that they would not carry Kimmel's show and pointed out the power that the FCC has over the broadcasting licenses of the affiliates.

Kimmel's show was pulled. The public was outraged. A private company has the right to control the speech of its employees without triggering the First Amendment. If the government coerces a private company to control speech, the First Amendment is violated.

What exactly is Kramer proposing to control — hate speech, disinformation or unflattering thoughts about government leaders?

Can the government punish hate speech?

The U.S. Supreme Court has said "no." In 2017, in a decision striking down a federal law banning disparaging trademarks, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the government had no business "preventing speech expressing ideas that offend."

Can the government prohibit speech that causes distress?

The Supreme Court again said "no." Courts would not stop a planned march by the American Nazi Party in Illinois in 1977, though it would have been deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors who lived there.

The First Amendment does not protect incitement of violence, but even there, the Supreme Court defined the prohibition very narrowly, requiring a likelihood of imminent violence.

Limiting online speech is a slippery slope. Striking a balance between removing harmful content and protecting legitimate expression is difficult at the very least. Maybe, more importantly, in our current political climate, the regulation of any speech could be used to silence dissent and suppress the marginalized.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner's Toll, 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

'Undeniable truths': Trump's push for state-sponsored death not as supported as he would have you believe

Matthew T. Mangino
Law & Crime News
January 5, 2026

Gov. Josh Shapiro has quietly issued a reprieve to a Pennsylvania inmate on death row.

This was the first reprieve of Shapiro's tenure and, although inconsistent with the actions of a number of other state executives, should not come as a surprise. Soon after he took office, Shapiro called on the legislature to repeal the death penalty. He said that his time as attorney general "revealed two undeniable truths about our capital sentencing system: that it is inherently fallible and that its consequences are irreversible."

In his reprieve, he wrote that although those sentenced to death "have committed the most terrible crimes and deserve to spend the rest of their lives behind bars," the commonwealth "should not be in the business of executing people."

Shapiro's position stands out in comparison to politicians who use the death penalty as a prop to promote or tout their "tough on crime" bona fides.

There were 47 executions in the United States last year — the most since 2010, the year I chose to examine all the executions across the country in my book, "The Executioner's Toll, 2010."

Maybe Donald Trump's executive order on the first day of his current term has had an impact on state-sponsored death. The order established that "It is the policy of the United States to ensure that the laws that authorize capital punishment are respected and faithfully implemented, and to counteract the politicians and judges who subvert the law by obstructing and preventing the execution of capital sentences."

At least one Trump adherent took the machinery of death and ran with it. Florida's Gov. Ron DeSantis has presided over a record-breaking surge in capital punishment — 19 executions last year.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to expand the application of the death penalty. Not to mention, the Court denied every request to stay an execution in 2025.

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bans, as cruel and unusual punishment, the execution of people who are intellectually disabled. The Court is poised to whittle away at its prior ruling.

Florida's Supreme Court recently upheld a 2023 state law allowing nonunanimous juries to sentence people to death. Florida law permits capital punishment with a jury recommendation of 8-4 in favor of death, the lowest standard in the nation.

Methods of execution were also controversial. Louisiana adopted nitrogen gas as a method of execution and South Carolina adopted — and used — the firing squad in 2025.

What explains the increase in executions?

Probably not public support. Recent polls show about half of Americans favor executions, but the best evidence of what people really think is found in courtrooms, where jurors have increasingly rejected the punishment.

Only 27 states, the federal government and the U.S. military, still allow the death penalty. This year, prosecutors in just 11 of those states sought the death penalty against a total of 51 people, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Jurors chose to send just 23 people to death row. Two-thirds of those death sentences came from only three states — Alabama, California, and Florida. To add some perspective, in 1996 alone 315 people were sentenced to death in the United States.

"The increase in this year's execution numbers was caused by the outlier state of Florida, where the governor set a record number of executions," said Robin Maher, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center. ​"The data show that the decisions of Gov. DeSantis and other elected officials are increasingly at odds with the decisions of American juries and the opinions of the American public."

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C., New Castle, Pennsylvania.  He is a frequent contributor to Law & Crime News. His book "The Executioner's Toll, 2010" was released by McFarland Publishing. You can follow him on X @MatthewTMangino.

To visit Law & Crime News CLICK HERE

 

A primer on what Nicholas Maduro faces in U.S. Court

Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela captured in a U.S. military raid, faces criminal charges in Manhattan, where federal prosecutors have targeted him for years, reported Reuters.

Here is a recap of the indictment unsealed on Saturday against Maduro, his wife, his son, and other co-defendants.

WHAT CHARGES DOES MADURO FACE?

The indictment, opens new tab alleged Maduro and other Venezuelan leaders have, for more than 25 years, "abused their positions of public trust and corrupted once-legitimate institutions to import tons of cocaine into the United States."

The indictment alleged Maduro and his allies “provided law enforcement cover and logistical support” to major drug trafficking groups, such as the Sinaloa Cartel and Tren de Aragua gang. These criminal organizations sent profits to high-ranking officials who protected them in exchange, the Justice Department said.

Among other specific acts, Maduro is accused of selling Venezuelan diplomatic passports to known drug traffickers and facilitating flights under diplomatic cover to bring drug proceeds back from Mexico to Venezuela.

Maduro was indicted on four counts: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

The case was brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, an office within the Justice Department famous for its fierce independence and aggressive prosecutions.

The same prosecutor's office returned an indictment against Maduro in 2020, with the same four charges. The updated indictment made public on Saturday adds some new details and co-defendants, including Maduro's wife, Cilia Flores.

The first lady is accused of ordering kidnappings and murders, as well as accepting bribes in 2007 to arrange a meeting between drug traffickers and the director of Venezuela’s National Anti-Drug Office.

WHAT COMES NEXT IN THE CRIMINAL CASE?

Maduro is expected to make an initial appearance in court on Monday. A judge will likely advise him of the charges against him and ensure he has a defense lawyer.

It could be several months or even more than a year before Maduro stands trial. Prosecutors could eventually offer a plea deal to avoid a trial.

Maduro's case is expected to be overseen by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein because he was assigned to the 2020 case brought against Maduro.

The 92-year-old jurist who has been skeptical of arguments by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration in other high-profile cases. Earlier this year, Hellerstein rejected efforts to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, saying the wartime law had been improperly invoked by the Trump administration.

WHAT DEFENSES WILL MADURO RAISE?

As the case unfolds, Maduro is likely to argue to seek dismissal on the grounds that he is immune, or shielded, from criminal prosecution because he is a foreign head of state.

Judges have in some contexts concluded that foreign officials enjoy immunity from legal claims in U.S. courts.

But Maduro faces an uphill battle with this argument because of a historic precedent: the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 that ousted the country's leader, Manuel Noriega.

Like Maduro, Noriega was accused of conspiring to smuggle drugs into the U.S., and was captured in a military raid in his home country.

U.S. courts rejected Noriega's immunity argument, showing deference to the U.S. government's assertion that he was not Panama's legitimate leader. Legal experts have said that precedent will likely undermine Maduro's efforts to get charges dismissed.

Maduro is also likely to invoke a legal doctrine that says criminal charges should be dismissed if prosecutors brought them vindictively or selectively. He might also argue that claims against him are time-barred, meaning they are too old to be pursued in court.

Federal conspiracy charges generally have a five-year statute of limitations, meaning charges must be brought within five years of the alleged crime's completion, with some exceptions.

To read more CLICK HERE

States are moving in sharply different directions on the death penalty

States are moving in sharply different directions on the death penalty, with some looking to broaden when and how executions occur while others try to scale them back or end them entirely, reported Stateline.

Lawmakers in more than half of the states have introduced over 100 bills this year to either expand or limit capital punishment, to alter execution protocols, and to change how death sentences are imposed, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that studies capital punishment. The group does not take a position on the death penalty, but it is critical of how it is carried out.

Some of the bills seeking to expand the death penalty would have included crimes that have been hot-button issues, such as the killing of police officers, sexual offenses against children, abortion and crimes committed by people living in the country illegally. Lawmakers in at least seven states this year also have attempted to legalize alternative methods of execution.

Earlier in the year, however, some Republican legislators in conservative states — including Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio and Oklahoma — proposed measures to abolish the death penalty or impose moratoriums to halt pending and future executions. None of those efforts advanced through their legislatures.

Georgia, meanwhile, enacted a law barring the execution of people with intellectual disabilities.

To read more CLICK HERE

WHY? U.S. ATTACKS VENEZUELA, CAPTURES PRESIDENT

President Trump announced that U.S. forces had carried out “a large scale strike against Venezuela” and were flying President Nicolás Maduro and his wife out of the country. The Trump administration had been building pressure on Mr. Maduro for months, reported The New York Times.

To read more CLICK HERE

What's on the agenda for U.S. Supreme Court in 2026

Here are the Supreme Court cases to watch in 2026, according to Axios:

Birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court will likely decide Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship in early 2026 in Trump v. Barbara.

Driving the news: Upholding Trump's order, which seeks to bar children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S. from citizenship, would overturn a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and upheld by the court for more than a century.

Trump's order was quickly met with legal challenges, and several courts temporarily halted its implementation.

Flashback: The administration argues birthright citizenship applies only to formerly enslaved people who were granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment after the Civil War.

Michael LeRoy, an immigration law expert at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, previously told Axios' Avery Lotz that it's impossible to predict how SCOTUS will rule — but a decision in Trump's favor could have sweeping implications for other constitutional protections.

Trump's tariff case

SCOTUS will decide the legality of Trump declaring a national emergency to impose sweeping tariffs on foreign goods without congressional approval, in what he has called the "most important case ever" in Learning Resources v. Trump.

State of play: A ruling against Trump could force the government to refund more than $100 billion in tariffs already collected and curtail his ability to use declared emergencies to enact his economic agenda.

Trump has repeatedly claimed tariff revenue will help pay down the national debt, bankroll aid to farmers and cover the cost of his new "warrior dividend" — a one-time $1,776 bonus for roughly 1.45 million service members — even though the bonus is actually being paid out of previously approved Pentagon housing funds, not tariffs.

Yes, but: The president has argued his far-reaching tariffs create jobs and boost U.S. manufacturing, claims many economists dispute. Economists also worry the government might ultimately have to return the tariff revenue.

In recent weeks, companies including Costco, Revlon, Bumble Bee Foods and the maker of Ray-Ban have sued, seeking refunds if the justices ultimately strike down the tariffs.

What Trump's saying: "Evil, American hating Forces are fighting us at the United States Supreme Court," Trump said in Truth Social post in November.

"Pray to God that our Nine Justices will show great wisdom, and do the right thing for America!"

Banning conversion therapy

SCOTUS is expected to rule on a case challenging bans on LGBTQ+ conversion therapy for minors — a discredited practice aimed at changing young people's sexual orientations or gender identities in Chiles v. Salazar.

Zoom out: The justices will decide whether therapists' conversations with patients are protected by the First Amendment or considered medical treatment that states can regulate.

LGBTQ+ advocates, major medical and mental health organizations have condemned conversion therapy as harmful, discriminatory and ineffective.

Worth noting: Twenty-three states had full bans on conversion therapy as of late 2025, with five states imposing a partial ban. Five states prohibit such bans, while 18 have no restrictions.

Trans athletes in women's sports

SCOTUS will hear arguments in two major cases — one from Idaho and another from West Virginia — where states banned transgender athletes from participating in girls' sports in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox.

Zoom in: The court could decide Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs, does not protect transgender athletes competing in sports consistent with their gender identity.

A decision against the athletes would mark a major setback for the LGBTQ+ community, adding to Trump's other 2025 actions to limit protections for transgender individuals.

The Voting Rights Act

The high court appears poised to severely curtail Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a decision that would reshape how legislative and congressional maps are drawn nationwide and potentially reduce minority representation by significant margins in Louisiana v. Callais.

Why it matters: The case challenges a core provision of the Voting Rights Act that has created maps that allow minority voters to elect their candidates of choice. Overturning it could allow Republicans to lock in additional congressional and legislative seats across the country.

The ruling could make it significantly harder for minority voters to secure or maintain electoral representation.

Campaign finance

SCOTUS will rule on a Republican-backed challenge that aims to overturn decades-old limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates in NRSC v. FEC.

What we're watching: Election watchdogs warn that removing these limits would destroy the few remaining firewalls between big money and candidates.

The case would further remove campaign finance restrictions on how much an individual or group can donate directly to a candidate, which provides a safeguard against bribery or suspected corruption.

How it works: Under current law, political action committees can raise unlimited funds, but they can't coordinate with candidates.

Parties, on the other hand, are limited in how much they can raise, but they are able to cooperate with candidates.

Republicans argue those limits violate the First Amendment by preventing parties from supporting their nominees.

Firing independent agency heads

The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump has the unilateral authority to fire leaders of independent agencies in Trump v. Cook and Trump v. Slaughter.

The bottom line: A ruling for Trump would overturn a 90-year-old precedent that shielded independent agency commissioners from political firings.

Catch up quick: The cases stem from Trump's attempted firing of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and his firings of FTC officials Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, who later resigned.

Trump said their service at the agency was "inconsistent with my Administration's policies," in a letter announcing the terminations.

Hawaii law prohibiting guns

SCOTUS will rule on the legality of a Hawaii law that prohibits individuals from carrying guns onto private property unless the owner gives explicit consent in Wolford v. Lopez.

Hawaii's list of "sensitive places," where firearms are banned, includes more than 15 categories — places such as bars, beaches and banks — which plaintiffs argue violates their 2nd Amendment rights.

Context: Hawaii enacted the new restrictions in 2023 after the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, which held that the 2nd Amendment included the right to carry in public.

California has faced similar legal challenges after passing laws aimed at tightening firearm restrictions on private property.

The justices have agreed to consider only Hawaii's burden flipping provision, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld, finding that the state's law "falls well within the historical tradition," and not the broader sensitive places restrictions as a whole.

To read more CLICK HERE