Another one bites the dust: Penn caves after threat from Trump over funding

Professor Jonathan Zimmerman of  the University of Pennsylvania writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Nice university you got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.

That’s what the Trump administration has essentially been saying to my own employer, the University of Pennsylvania, regarding our decisions about trans female swimmer Lia Thomas. Back in April, the White House warned us that we risked losing federal funding if we didn’t strip Thomas of her records and apologize to swimmers who lost to her.

On Tuesday, we caved. And we will never live that down.

A university is supposed to be a place where free and untrammeled minds search for the truth, as best they can discern it. But in this sordid episode, we put all of that aside. Money talked, and everything else walked.

Let me be clear: Reasonable people can and do differ about whether Penn should have allowed Thomas to compete on its women’s swim team back in 2021 and 2022. It’s a complicated question, and I still don’t know how to answer it.

But here’s what I do know: We should not have capitulated to the White House by removing Thomas’ individual swimming records and promising to apologize to athletes who might have been harmed by her participation on the women’s squad.

We did win a reprieve from the government, which agreed to restore the $175 million in grants that it paused back in March because Thomas had competed on the women’s team. But what does it profit a university if it gains the whole world of federal dollars and loses its own soul?

As president J. Larry Jameson noted in his letter to the Penn community, the university was following NCAA eligibility rules — and the federal Title IX law, “as then interpreted” — when it let Thomas swim on the women’s team. Jameson went on to write that “some student athletes were disadvantaged by these rules,” and he pledged to apologize to them.

You read that right: Penn is going to apologize for following the law.

To be sure, some laws are unjust. Slavery was legal across the United States when the nation was born. Women were mostly barred from voting and from inheriting property. And millions of Black Americans were segregated in communities and schools — again, by law — until the civil rights era.

Universities were deeply implicated in all of these matters. And, to their credit, many of them have acknowledged the same and promised to make amends. Most notably, Georgetown University apologized for its role in the 1838 sale of 272 enslaved African Americans to pay off a debt at the school. Together with the Jesuits, the religious society that founded Georgetown, the university also gave $27 million to a foundation that assists descendants of the people who were sold.

Meanwhile, students at Georgetown voted to add a new fee each semester of $27.20 per student, and to donate the proceeds to healthcare and education programs in Maryland and Louisiana, where many of the known descendants of the 272 enslaved people now live.

One day, allowing Thomas to swim on the women’s team might be viewed as a profound injustice, as well. But in the here and now, most students, faculty, and administrators at Penn don’t see it that way. We’re not apologizing because we think we did something wrong. We’re apologizing to save our own skins.

That’s understandable, but it’s also deeply cynical. It’s the kind of thing that happens in authoritarian countries, where you have to echo the party line to stay in the government’s good graces.

Penn is going to apologize for following the law.

Ditto for Penn’s decision to restore individual records and titles to female athletes who lost to Thomas, as the Trump administration had demanded. By Tuesday afternoon, our website already showed other athletes owning the school’s top times in Thomas’ events.

You might argue that’s fair and just, given the physical advantages Thomas enjoyed. And you might be right. Like I said, it’s an open question.

But there is no question — none — about why Penn made this call: to avoid the wrath of Donald Trump. And that’s what I call cowardice.

In his letter announcing the agreement that Penn reached with the Trump administration, Jameson said that he remains “dedicated to preserving and advancing the University’s vital and enduring mission.” I’m sure he does. But if that mission includes an unwavering quest for truth, the agreement made a mockery of it. Shame on us.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino appears on Law and Crime's On the Case with Chris Stewart

Watch my interview with Chris Stewart on Law & Crime's On the Case about 17-year-old Gianna Kistenmacher who is under arrest for allegedly orchestrating a deadly encounter between two teen boys in South Carolina, which led to the shooting death of 16-year-old Trey Wright.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Read the Declaration of Independence today!

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

 (Thank you to the Pennsylvania Capital Star for reprinting)

Texas man charged with capital murder for slipping pregnant woman abortion pill

A North Texas man charged with capital murder this month after he allegedly slipped his girlfriend abortion-inducing medication and caused a miscarriage marks the first time a murder charge has been brought in an abortion-related case in Texas, reported the Texas Tribune.

The case tests a new method for reining in abortion pills — by threatening to prosecute individuals who provide them with the most severe criminal charge — while advancing the longstanding legal provision that defines an embryo as a person, legal experts say. The latter could raise serious implications about the legality of fertility treatments and in other legal realms such as criminal and immigration issues.

“It is shocking to people that the law can be used this way… that this is the extent and result of the more than 20 year old fetal personhood laws,” said Blake Rocap, a Texas attorney who works in abortion rights advocacy and studies pregnancy criminalization. Legal experts say the case will not change Texas laws that prevent women who receive abortions from being prosecuted.

According to an affidavit filed in Tarrant County by the Texas Rangers, 39-year-old Justin Anthony Banta put mifepristone, an abortion-inducing medication, into cookies and a beverage that he then gave to his pregnant girlfriend. Banta had previously asked her to get an abortion, but she said she had wanted to keep the child, according to the affidavit. A day after drinking the beverage, the woman miscarried.

The Texas Rangers did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office, which must decide whether and how to prosecute the case, has not yet brought its own charges, according to a spokesperson.

Before Roe v. Wade was overturned, a fetus was not considered a person constitutionally. However, when Roe v. Wade was overturned, the whole opinion was overruled, including the idea that a fetus does not have the same rights as a person. That did not immediately mean that fetus personhood is established. But, Joanna Grossman, a professor at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, and other experts see Banta’s case as an attempt to move further in that direction.

“The purpose of this has nothing to do with caring whether this woman was victimized, but it's about trying to establish fetal personhood in a more direct way than they've been able to,” said Grossman.

If Banta is convicted and fetal personhood is established in the case, it could complicate a variety of issues, including whether IVF is still legal because it involves destroying unused frozen embryos. Last year, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are considered children.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino discusses Sean 'Diddy' Combs jury deliberations on WFMJ-TV21

The case of Sean "Diddy" Combs is in the hands of the jury, as it started its deliberations on Monday. WFMJ 21 News Legal Expert Matthew T. Mangino breaks down the closing arguments and what the jury will consider.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

ALTERT: Look closely, the 'Big Beautiful Bill' is also an attack on the rule of law

In President Trump’s so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”--buried in Section 70302 of the legislation— is a provision that would severely restrict federal courts’ authority to hold government officials in contempt if they violate judicial orders, reports the Campaign Legal Center.

A court’s ability to hold bad actors in contempt is a vital enforcement power that judges can use to compel compliance with their rulings.

When somebody chooses to violate a court order, the judge who issued the ruling has a few different options to force them to comply, including holding them in contempt and issuing sanctions, fines, or even jail time until the order is followed.

But the reconciliation bill would require anyone suing the government to pay a bond before the court can use its contempt power to enforce injunctions or restraining orders meant to halt illegal actions.

By restricting this authority, the House bill threatens the power of the judicial branch. On its own, that represents an attack on the rule of law and the separation of powers that underlies our democracy. But in the context of our current political moment, a more specific goal is unfortunately clear. 

Courts have already ruled at least 170 times against the Trump administration, including a preliminary injunction sought by CLC that halted Trump’s unconstitutional attempt to change the rules for federal elections. In response to many of these rulings, the president has resisted compliance and waged intimidation campaigns targeting the judges responsible.

In light of all this, the House bill seems squarely and unacceptably focused on shielding the Trump administration from accountability when it breaks the law. 

To read more CLICK HERE 

Kohberger's zealous defense fizzles agrees to plea deal

Bryan Kohberger, the man charged in the brutal stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students, has reached a plea deal to avoid the death penalty, according to a letter that prosecutors sent to relatives of the victims, reported The New York Times.

Mr. Kohberger had been set to go on trial on murder charges in August, nearly three years after the killings, which occurred at a residence near the university in Moscow, Idaho. A plea hearing is set for Wednesday.

In a letter to the victims’ families on Monday, prosecutors said that Mr. Kohberger’s defense team asked for a plea offer last week. Under the proposed agreement, which must be approved by the judge in the case, Mr. Kohberger would plead guilty to all charges, face four consecutive life sentences and waive all rights to appeal.

The family of Kaylee Goncalves, one of the victims, criticized the prosecution team for failing to consult with the families. Some of them had worked to change Idaho law to allow the firing squad as a form of capital punishment.

“After more than two years, this is how it concludes, with a secretive deal and a hurried effort to close the case without any input from the victims’ families on the plea’s details,” the Goncalves family said in a statement.

In their letter to the families, prosecutors wrote that the plea deal was “our sincere attempt to seek justice.”

“This agreement ensures that the defendant will be convicted, will spend the rest of his life in prison, and will not be able to put you and other families through the uncertainty of decades of post-conviction appeals,” they wrote. “Your viewpoints weighed heavily in our decision-making process, and we hope that you may come to appreciate why we believe this resolution is in the best interests of justice.”

Prosecutors did not respond to messages seeking comment, nor did lawyers for Mr. Kohberger. The families of the other victims did not comment immediately on the proposed agreement.

Mr. Kohberger, now 30, was a criminology Ph.D. student at Washington State University, about a 20-minute drive from the crime scene. He grew up in Pennsylvania and studied psychology in college. He was arrested in December 2022 at his parents’ home in the Pocono Mountains area of Pennsylvania about six weeks after the killings.

Mr. Kohberger’s defense team tried unsuccessfully for months to undermine key pieces of evidence that investigators collected against him. Prosecutors have said that his DNA was found on a knife sheath recovered at the crime scene, and that records showed he had purchased a knife of a kind matching the sheath in the months before the killings. Video footage showed a car similar to his circling the neighborhood around the time of the deaths.

But investigators have yet to suggest a motive or offer any details on how the victims were chosen.

Mr. Kohberger’s lawyers filed a flurry of motions in recent months, including one trying to bar prosecutors from seeking the death penalty — in part, they said, because Mr. Kohberger had been diagnosed with autism. They unsuccessfully sought a delay in the trial, arguing that their team had not had enough time to comb through the vast amount of evidence in the case. But the judge ordered jury selection to commence on Aug. 4.

Just hours before news of the plea deal on Monday, one of Mr. Kohberger’s lawyers was in court in Pennsylvania, where she successfully argued that two witnesses who knew Mr. Kohberger as a teenager should be forced to testify at trial even though they did not want to.

Mr. Kohberger has been in jail since his arrest. His lawyers have given few hints about what defense they planned to offer, but have said that he was “out driving” on the night of the murders.

In the years before the killings, Mr. Kohberger indicated that he was interested in studying criminals. In a message to a friend in 2018, he wrote that he would like a job “dealing with high-profile offenders.” A few months before the murders, he posted on Reddit asking people who had spent time in prison to describe their “thoughts, emotions and actions from the beginning to end of the crime commission process.”

Investigators have said that the murders happened sometime around 4 a.m. on Nov. 13, 2022. The victims — Ms. Goncalves, 21; Madison Mogen, 21; Xana Kernodle, 20; and Ethan Chapin, 20 — had spent a typical Saturday night out near the university campus and returned to the house in the early hours of Sunday.

A roommate who survived the attack said she had heard what sounded like crying coming from the room of one of the women. She later told the police that she had opened her door and seen a man with bushy eyebrows in black clothes and a mask. The man left the house and the roommate began texting with another surviving roommate downstairs before taking refuge in her room.

But neither she nor anyone else called the police until more than seven hours later, when a friend came to the house and discovered the body of one of the victims.

To read more CLICK HERE