Summary: Judge Richard Berman approves dismissal of Halkbank case Prosecutor Michael Lockard cites diplomatic efforts with Turkey Monitor Ernst & Young finds no Halkbank noncompliance A federal judge dismissed on June 17 the U.S. Justice Department's criminal indictment of Halkbank after President Donald Trump's administration reached a deal with the Turkish state-run lender, ending a prosecution brought in 2019. The bank's shares on the Istanbul stock exchange rose as much as 8.4 percent after U.S. District Judge Richard Berman said he had signed off on federal prosecutors' request to end the case. The deal was announced in March but required the judge's approval. The dismissal promised to relieve a lingering irritant between NATO allies Turkey and the United States. Halkbank was charged during Trump's first term with helping Iran evade American economic sanctions. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan once called the case unlawful and "ugly." But the countries are experiencing their best ties in decades since Trump's return to the presidency last year. "The criminal case against our bank ongoing in the United States for years has been definitively and conclusively closed," Halkbank said in a statement. Halkbank Chief Executive Recep Süleyman Özdil said the bank expected its opportunities to access foreign funding would improve. PROSECUTOR CITES DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS WITH TURKEY U.S. judges have little discretion to reject the terms of deferred prosecution agreements such as the one reached between the Justice Department and Halkbank. At the hearing, prosecutor Michael Lockard of the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office said the agreement to end the case arose out of diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire last year between Israel and Hamas. "Those multilateral efforts included an instrumental role from the government of Turkey," Lockard said. After Erdogan and Trump met last year, the Turkish president expressed hope for a resolution of the Halkbank matter. Erdogan said in October that Trump told him during a September meeting at the White House and in a subsequent phone call that "the Halkbank problem is finished for us." The Justice Department has also said dropping the prosecution would further the U.S. interest in curbing support for Iran. The agreement bars Halkbank from entering transactions that benefit Iran and requires a monitor to review Halkbank's sanctions and anti-money laundering compliance. No money changes hands in the agreement, and the bank did not admit criminal wrongdoing. Halkbank had pleaded not guilty in the case. At a court hearing in March, Berman referenced a letter he received from an advocacy group urging him to press for an explanation as to why there was no financial penalty. The judge did not address the issue at Wednesday's hearing. MONITOR FINDS NO INSTANCES OF HALKBANK NONCOMPLIANCE U.S. prosecutors had accused Halkbank of secretly transferring $20 billion of restricted funds, converting oil revenue into gold and cash to benefit Iranian interests and documenting fake food shipments to justify transfers of oil proceeds. The settlement was announced after the Iran war began in February. Cemal Demirtas, the general manager for research at Istanbul-based Ata Invest, said the dismissal was positive for the bank but largely expected. After the deal was announced in March, the judge paused the case for 90 days to allow Halkbank to demonstrate compliance with its terms. Halkbank hired Ernst & Young to review its compliance policies. When that period lapsed on June 10, prosecutors with the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office asked Berman to formally dismiss the case, writing that the monitor, Ernst & Young, had not found any instances of noncompliance by Halkbank. The case has taken a circuitous path through the U.S. courts. The U.S. Supreme Court last October let stand a lower court's decision that allowed the prosecution to proceed. Halkbank had argued that as a Turkish state-owned entity, it should be immune from legal actions in another country's courts. Reporting by Luc Cohen in New York and Canan Sevgili in Gdansk; Additional reporting by Arda Dipova and Mirac Eren Dereli in Gdansk; Editing by Will Dunham, Rod Nickel

Summary: Luigi Mangione missed June 16 court appearance due to paperwork error Trial set for September before Justice Gregory Carro in Manhattan Federal murder and weapons charges dismissed by U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett     Luigi Mangione, the man accused of gunning down a health insurance executive on a Manhattan sidewalk, is due for a hearing in state court on June 17 ahead of his highly anticipated murder trial. Mangione, 28, missed a June 16 court appearance due to a paperwork error related to his transfer from custody, a prosecutor said. The judge called the error "unfortunate" and told the parties to return to court in Manhattan on June 17. Mangione is accused of fatally shooting UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a hotel in Midtown in December 2024, a brazen killing that was widely condemned by public officials but became emblematic of Americans’ frustration with rising healthcare costs and health insurance industry practices. Mangione pleaded not guilty in December 2024 to state murder, weapons and forgery charges brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. His trial is set for September before Justice Gregory Carro in Manhattan. The agenda for the June 17 hearing is not clear, but Carro indicated that it would be related to questionnaires for prospective jurors. Thompson led UnitedHealth Group's insurance unit before he was shot dead in the early morning outside a hotel where he was staying for an investor conference. Graphic footage of the killing and a five-day manhunt for a suspect made the case a media fixture and social media sensation. Mangione was arrested in Pennsylvania. Mangione separately pleaded not guilty in April 2025 to murder, weapons and stalking charges brought by Manhattan federal prosecutors. U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett, who is overseeing the case, threw out the murder and weapons charges over legal technicalities in a surprise ruling in January. That decision eliminated the possibility that Mangione would face the death penalty, though he still faces a possible sentence of life without parole if convicted of stalking. Jury selection in that case is set to begin in September, and opening statements in the trial are scheduled for November. Reporting by Jack Queen in New York; Editing by Noeleen Walder, Christian Schmollinger and Chizu Nomiyama

Summary: U.S. Supreme Court rejects gun industry appeal New York law permits lawsuits against gun makers 2nd Circuit upheld law in prior ruling   On June 15, the U.S. Supreme Court turned away a gun industry challenge to a New York law that permits lawsuits against gun makers, wholesalers and dealers for endangering people's safety through sales of firearms and ammunition. The justices declined to hear an appeal by an industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, of a lower court's ruling upholding the law, which New York calls a public nuisance statute. The group had argued that the law unconstitutionally conflicted with federal law. Gun companies including Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, Glock, Sig Sauer and Sturm joined the appeal. The Supreme Court in 2025 spared Smith & Wesson from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing the company of aiding illegal gun trafficking to drug cartels. The New York law, signed by former Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2021, requires the gun industry to use reasonable safeguards to protect against gun trafficking, theft and the use of "straw purchasers" who buy firearms for someone else. It allows civil lawsuits by New York state and local officials as well as members of the public. The National Shooting Sports Foundation said the law was preempted by a 2005 federal law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that shields the gun industry from civil liability when its products are used in crimes. Under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, federal laws take precedence over state laws that conflict with them. The Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld New York's law last year. Circuit Judge Eunice Lee, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden, wrote that Congress intended to preserve "at least some causes of action" when a defendant's knowing violation of federal or state firearms sales and marketing laws was a proximate cause of harm. Concurring, Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs, an appointee of Republican former President George H.W. Bush, agreed that the New York law was not preempted, but accused state lawmakers of having "contrived a broad public nuisance statute that applies solely to gun industry members and is enforceable by a mob of public and private actors." 'CRUSHING' LIABILITY The appeal did not hinge on the Constitution's Second Amendment protections of the right to keep and bear arms. But the trade group said laws such as New York's imperil such rights by allowing lawsuits that could saddle companies with "crushing liability" for crimes they had nothing to do with. "This Court's review is sorely needed to ensure that states hostile to Second Amendment rights cannot frustrate their exercise by trying to bankrupt the licensed (and heavily regulated) industry members that make the exercise of those constitutional rights possible," it told the justices. The group also said the so-called "predicate exception" in the federal law at issue subjected the industry to liability only for failures to comply with specific obligations or prohibitions within its control. "The decision below blows a gaping hole in a statute that Congress enacted for the express purpose of protecting the firearms industry from exactly the kinds of lawsuits New York seeks to usher back in," the group said, referring to the 2nd Circuit ruling. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT New York called the ruling consistent with the Supreme Court decision in the Mexico case, and that the predicate exception allowed liability for some "downstream acts" of third parties. It also said at least nine states have passed laws to satisfy the exception, and the Supreme Court should let challenges wind through the courts rather than declare New York's law unconstitutional in every respect. The gun industry appeal was supported in filings by the National Rifle Association, 24 Republican state attorneys general and several dozen Republican members of Congress. The Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in three major decisions since 2008, when it found that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Will Dunham