Summary: Minnesota filed a lawsuit on March 24 seeking federal evidence in ICE shootings of Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis. The lawsuit alleges the federal government obstructed investigations by denying access to key evidence and ignoring Touhy requests. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty and Attorney General Keith Ellison lead the case against the Department of Justice and Homeland Security. Minnesota prosecutors escalated their fight with the Trump administration over Operation Metro Surge on March 24, filing a lawsuit seeking to force the federal government to turn over evidence in the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens and the wounding of a third person by federal immigration agents. “Minnesotans are seeing their federal government hide evidence and obstruct investigations into these incidents. We will not sit by and let that happen,” Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said during a news conference. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, is the latest and most aggressive of a series of actions taken by Moriarty and Attorney General Keith Ellison to secure key pieces of evidence in the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti as well as the shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis. That includes the car in which Good was killed on Jan. 7, the names of the agents who killed Pretti on Jan. 24, and the guns in all three cases. Ellison and Moriarty said they were stepping into uncharted territory by suing the federal government for access to evidence, since federal and local authorities usually coordinate closely in criminal investigations. “All we want is to conduct a fair, impartial and thorough investigation,” Ellison said. “The federal government has refused to cooperate … which is unique, rare and simply cannot be tolerated.” The lawsuit was filed by the state of Minnesota, Moriarty and state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans against the U.S. Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who was replaced by U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin. The lawsuit was filed with the pro bono assistance of the Washington Litigation Group and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law School. The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension typically investigates police shootings and was on the scene in Minneapolis collecting evidence after ICE officer Jonathan Ross shot and killed Good and after an ICE agent shot Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan national, in the leg a week later on Jan. 14. In both cases, federal agents led state BCA investigators to believe that they would carry out a joint investigation but then denied them access to evidence, according to the lawsuit. President Trump justified the decision to freeze out local law enforcement from investigating the Good killing by calling Minnesota officials “crooked.” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche then said there would be no investigation into Good’s killing. Instead, federal officials were directed to investigate Good’s wife for her connection to groups that observe and protest ICE activity, which the New York Times reported led to a wave of resignations in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. After federal agents shot and killed Pretti, BCA agents were physically blocked from entering the scene by federal officials, despite obtaining a judicial warrant. The lawsuit says the BCA continued to press for cooperation, and in early February, an attorney from the DOJ’s Washington office flew to Minnesota for a meeting. But the attorney told the BCA that the federal government wanted the BCA to share its evidence in the Pretti killing investigation with federal authorities but the federal government would not share its evidence with the BCA. Moriarty and Ellison also made multiple “Touhy” demands for evidence, which are akin to subpoenas. They either went unanswered or were denied. In the lawsuit, Minnesota officials argue the federal government acted illegally by ignoring those Touhy requests. They also argue the Trump administration is violating the 10th Amendment, which entitles states to investigate and enforce criminal law. Some of the evidence local prosecutors are seeking includes the guns and shell casings; interviews with federal agents; and Pretti’s cellphone, which likely has video he took of his interactions with federal agents moments before his death. Moriarty said her office has received important pieces of evidence after asking the public for help, receiving over 1,000 submissions to a portal. Her office is now investigating more than a dozen other incidents involving federal agents during Operation Metro Surge, including former Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, for possible criminal charges. Moriarty said she is prepared to make charging decisions even if they don’t receive evidence from the federal government. Prosecuting federal agents isn’t easy — they have some protections under the Supremacy Clause for reasonably carrying out their duties, though legal experts note they are not immune from charges for serious misconduct. “We share jurisdiction with the federal government,” Ellison said. “These incidents happened in Minnesota and fall under Minnesota state law.” This article originally appeared on St. Cloud Times: “Minnesota sues federal government for evidence in ICE shootings” Reporting by Max Nesterak, Minnesota Reformer / St. Cloud Times USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

Summary: The Pentagon adopted new press restrictions on journalists following a federal court order blocking previous limits. Journalists must now be escorted by authorized Defense Department personnel on Pentagon grounds. The Pentagon Press Association and the New York Times have criticized the new policy and plan further legal action. The U.S. Defense Department said on Monday it was adopting new restrictions on journalists, after a court blocked a previous press access policy, and would close an indoor workspace in favor of an area on grounds outside the main Pentagon building. Press freedom advocates have criticized policy changes under President Donald Trump's administration that have limited journalists' access to the Pentagon, saying they suppress freedom of speech. On Friday, a federal judge blocked the press access changes implemented by the Pentagon last year, which threatened journalists with being ​branded security risks if they seek information not authorized for public release. "The Department always complies with court orders but disagrees with the decision and is pursuing an appeal," spokesman Sean Parnell said on Monday in a statement, adding that revised restrictions would be effective immediately. Under the revised policy, all journalists' access to the Pentagon will require escort by authorized Defense Department personnel. The "Correspondents' Corridor" at the Pentagon, where journalists have worked for years, was being closed immediately and a new press workspace will be established on grounds outside the main building, and will be available when ready, the Defense Department added. The Pentagon Press Association said Monday's announcement "is a clear violation of the letter and spirit of last week's ruling by a U.S. federal court." The association added that it was consulting with its legal counsel on the matter. Friday's order came after a lawsuit brought by the New York Times alleged that the policy changes by the Defense Department in October 2025 gave the Pentagon free rein to freeze out reporters and news outlets over coverage the department did not like, in violation of the Constitution's free speech and due process protections. The government said the policy was reasonable for national security. The changes approved under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that journalists can be deemed security risks and have their press badges revoked if they solicit unauthorized military personnel to disclose classified, and in some cases unclassified, information. Of the 56 news outlets in the Pentagon Press Association, only one agreed to sign an acknowledgment of the previous policy, according to the Times' lawsuit. Reporters who did not sign surrendered their press passes. The New York Times said on Monday the latest Pentagon policy does not comply with the judge's order and continues "unconstitutional restrictions." "We will be going back to court," it added. (Reporting by Kanishka Singh, Ismail Shakil and Jasper Ward; Editing by Caitlin Webber and Michael Perry)

Summary: Delaware Chancery Court resolved a custody battle over a goldendoodle named Tucker between Joseph Nelson and Karen Callahan in 2024. The court ordered a sealed bid auction where the highest bidder received the dog and the other party received the bid amount as compensation. The case highlights evolving Delaware laws recognizing pets as more than property and aims to set precedent for future pet custody disputes. Delaware's Chancery Court, where some of the nation's largest businesses litigate billion-dollar disputes, has finalized a years-long custody battle between estranged lovers over a goldendoodle named Tucker. After fighting over Tucker’s custody in multiple courts, the dispute between Joseph Nelson and Karen Callahan was ultimately resolved by a Chancery Court judge in a way more suited to dividing a business asset than a beloved family pet. The case posed a question of first impression for the court and highlights an area of the law that experts say is gradually evolving to reflect the popular view that pets are family members. “Of course, the court will not order the physical division of a companion animal, even if the discerning wisdom of King Solomon teaches otherwise,” Vice Chancellor Bonnie David wrote in a ruling last year. Ultimately, she decided the best way to resolve the matter was a particular kind of auction in which both parties submitted a single, secret bid. The high bidder took Tucker and the loser got the winner's bid as monetary consolation. Nelson, who lived with Callahan in Bear and owns a local general contracting business, won the auction last month. And it appears the dispute is now finalized as the deadline for Callahan to continue to litigate through appeals passed recently. Court records do not disclose the bid amount and Nelson declined to say or be interviewed for this story. Through their attorneys, Nelson said he was “happy to close this chapter in his life,” while Callahan said she continues to miss Tucker. Both said they hope the case sets precedent to more quickly resolve similar disputes in the future. Nelson’s attorney wrote that the case highlights the issue of treating companion animals as personal property. "Delaware has recognized that pets are more than mere chattel in only limited situations," wrote Joseph Wolcott, Nelson's attorney. "My client hopes that this case can be used to help bolster protections for vulnerable companion animals that do not have their own voice." Callahan and Nelson were once next-door neighbors and reconnected at a funeral in 2018. That meeting blossomed into romance, dating and cohabitation at Nelson's residence. The two never married but shared different assets and eventually Tucker, who came into their lives in 2020. Callahan, who worked for JP Morgan, told the court Tucker was acquired as a support animal during her cancer treatments. Years later, Nelson told the court that was news to him. The two said they generally shared expenses for Tucker. The legal dispute over Tucker, along with parallel fights over property, began when the two split in 2022. Nelson told the court that Callahan abandoned Tucker with him. Callahan told the court Nelson locked Tucker in his truck and eventually took him out of the state. The two quarreled over other assets in relatively short court battles, but the fight for Tucker has wound on and on. It started in the Justice of the Peace Court, then went to the Court of Common Pleas and Superior Court, which affirmed Tucker was jointly owned. That, however, left the question of custody open. Callahan brought the dispute to Delaware's famed Chancery Court in 2024, asking for partition. In Delaware and most other jurisdictions, pets are considered property. Nelson argued against partition, telling the court it was inconsistent with recent legal changes made by the Delaware General Assembly. In 2023, the Legislature enacted three laws pertaining to pets caught in domestic strife. One specifically ordered Delaware's Family Court to consider the well-being of a companion animal when dividing marital property. Nelson argued the court should consider that public policy stance by lawmakers and deny Callahan's bid for partition. But Nelson and Callahan were not married, so David ruled partition was the appropriate remedy for such a division of property. The ruling set out that one party would get the dog and the other would get a monetary award. But it left open what that process would look like, and the judge ordered the two parties to negotiate that. They could not agree, so the question went back to the judge. David noted it was within Chancery's remit to consider all the consequences and balance them so as not to do more harm than good. She noted that dogs are property, but "they are not furniture; they are living, sentient beings with value that transcends economics." But she also wasn't convinced one side would be a better fit for Tucker, so she ordered an auction. Then the two fought over what kind of auction would occur. "It is clear that, having already spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees across four courts, these parties are highly motivated," David wrote. "A single-submission process will encourage the parties to think carefully about how much they are willing to spend and incentivize them to come forward with their best and final offers." This article originally appeared on Delaware News Journal: “Delaware dog custody battle wraps up with an unexpected auction” Reporting by Xerxes Wilson, Delaware News Journal / Delaware News Journal