Blog

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A Minnesota man who pleaded guilty Thursday to killing a top Democratic lawmaker and her husband admitted he spent months identifying elected officials to target and stalked them before driving to their homes in the middle of the night, dressed as a police officer, with the intention of killing them.

The Minneapolis-area attacks last summer by Vance Boelter, 58, sparked the largest police search in state history and reverberated across the country, with elected officials fearing that escalating threats and polarization could lead to more violence. Boelter pleaded guilty so that federal prosecutors would not seek the death penalty; instead, he agreed to serve two consecutive life sentences, plus 40 years.

Boelter, disguised in a tactical uniform and realistic mask, parked his police-style SUV with emergency flashing lights in the driveway of House Speaker Melissa Hortman’s home at around 3:30 a.m. on June 14, 2025. He rang the doorbell, shouting: “Police, welfare check,” according to a plea agreement made public Thursday. Mark Hortman, her husband, answered the door.

Mark Hortman told Boelter that his wife was also in the home, and Boelter said he’d need to see her before he could leave, according to the plea agreement. When Mark Hortman asked, Boelter gave him a fake name and badge number and, when Hortman followed up for his jurisdiction, Boelter hesitated before naming a different Minneapolis suburb, the agreement states. Boelter then immediately took out his gun to shoot Hortman multiple times, according to the agreement.

Boelter then “rushed forward through the front door into the home” and shot Melissa Hortman repeatedly “as she attempted to flee upstairs,” according to the plea agreement. Both Melissa and Mark Hortman were killed.

Boelter had already been to the home of state Sen. John Hoffman that night, shooting and critically injuring him and his wife, Yvette, while their daughter was nearby.

There were brief sobs from the courtroom gallery Thursday where family members of the Hortmans sat alongside John and Yvette Hoffman as the attacks were described in detail. Again and again Boelter simply said “yes,” as his attorney questioned him about his actions, including whether he pressed a pistol to Melissa Hortman’s head and fired.

U.S. Attorney Daniel N. Rosen told reporters after the hearing that the death penalty was only taken off the table after Boelter agreed to the longest possible prison sentence for the six federal charges.

“Political violence is a scourge plaguing America,” Rosen said. “Those that would commit political violence at any level should take heed: the Justice Department will seek and obtain the longest prison terms available for your crimes.”

A statement posted on John Hoffman’s Facebook page said there is no justice for the Hortmans, and “there is not justice when our family and our state will never truly heal. While the legal process may provide accountability, true healing requires something more from all of us.”

The statement called on Minnesotans and Americans to “treat people with respect, to stop de-humanizing each other, and to stop dividing our country with hate and rhetoric.”

Boelter also faces state charges, including two counts of murder and four counts of attempted murder as well as charges of impersonating a police officer and animal cruelty. The Hortman family’s golden retriever was gravely injured in the shootings and had to be euthanized. The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office said Thursday that the federal plea agreement does not affect the state’s case, which had been on hold pending the resolution of the federal case.

Boelter also stopped outside the homes of two other lawmakers in the Minneapolis suburbs that night. At one, he knocked but no one answered. At the other, he was apparently frightened away when a police officer, believing he was a fellow officer, approached him as he sat in his vehicle.

Boelter, wearing his orange jail sweatshirt and sweatpants as he sat in the courtroom between two of his attorneys, listened closely as U.S. District Judge John Tunheim talked through each of the six charges and their maximum sentences. Tunheim accepted the guilty pleas and said he would set a date soon for sentencing.

Boelter was captured near his home in rural Green Isle, about an hour’s drive from Minneapolis, the day after the shootings, which prosecutors have said were politically motivated but which remain in many ways unexplained.

“Dad went to war last night,” Boelter messaged his family that morning. “Words are not going to explain how sorry I am.”

Boelter, an evangelical Christian with politically conservative views who had traveled to Congo as a preacher and missionary, spent much of his life in the food service industry. He had been struggling to earn a living before the shootings, after the failure of a security company he’d founded.

John Hoffman said in a lawsuit filed against Boelter in April that his left arm and hand likely would never fully recover and that he also had permanent injuries to his digestive and urinary systems.

Yvette Hoffman was left with permanent physical weakness, the lawsuit said, while their adult daughter, Hope Hoffman, who was there and called 911 but was not shot, suffered severe psychological trauma.

___

Fingerhut reported from Des Moines, Iowa.

ATMORE, Ala. (AP) — An Alabama man facing the death penalty by nitrogen gas was spared Thursday as the U.S. Supreme Court refused to set aside a lower-court ruling that found the method is unconstitutionally cruel, issuing a brief order that came well after the hour originally planned to initiate Jeffery Lee’s execution.

The justices decided not to lift an injunction blocking Alabama from carrying out what would have been the nation’s ninth execution by nitrogen gas, rejecting a last-minute legal battle by the state as it sought to carry out the sentence in the evening. A spokesperson for the Alabama Department of Corrections said the execution was off for the evening and the state would not try another method.

The high court voted 6-3 and did not explain its reasoning. Three of the conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch — said they would grant Alabama’s request to lift the injunction and let the execution go forward.

In a statement the legal team for Lee, 49, hailed the decision and noted that his jury had voted for a sentence of life, which a judge overruled.

“His jury voted for life. Two courts ruled the method unconstitutional. Today, the Constitution prevailed,” the statement said. “Now Governor Ivey can finish what the jury started: restore the jury’s verdict of life without parole.”

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall promised the families of the victims that authorities will continue to seek justice, saying in a statement: “The State is prepared to do whatever is necessary to see Mr. Lee’s lawful sentence carried out.”

“Tonight’s ruling is a miscarriage of justice, not for us, but for Jimmy Ellis and Elaine Thompson, who Jeffery Lee brutally and senselessly murdered and left on the floor of their place of business,” Marshall said. “Tonight I am also keeping their families in mind, many of whom were prepared to witness the final act of justice be served.”

Prison officials said Lee did not request a final meal Thursday but had potato chips, Skittles, water and a Sprite in the hours ahead of his possible execution.

The ruling was at least a temporary, rare victory for opponents of capital punishment in a state that has had one of the busiest death chambers in the country. And it capped an extraordinary legal back-and-forth over the humaneness of nitrogen gas as an execution method.

Legal challenge wended its way through the courts

Lee filed a lawsuit challenging Alabama’s protocol as a violation of the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and U.S. District Judge Emily Marks ruled the method constitutional in May.

But a three-judge panel from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed her decision Monday, saying the three minutes it could take for an inmate to lose awareness is an “intolerable” time frame “given the suffering that would likely take place under Alabama’s nitrogen hypoxia protocol.”

Marks reevaluated the case and ruled again Tuesday saying Lee had shown “that the protocol constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.” The state appealed to the Supreme Court.

“If that ruling stands, it would be unprecedented in American history. Not only does it portend the first-ever permanent ban on a legislatively enacted method, but it would expand the concept of cruelty well beyond the bounds of the Eighth Amendment,” lawyers with the Alabama Attorney General’s Office wrote.

Lee’s lawyers asked the high court to keep the execution on hold, saying in a response that Alabama was asking it to intervene at the eleventh hour “to allow an execution that has been found unconstitutional to proceed.”

The decision blocks Lee’s execution in the immediate future, but it is unclear how long the reprieve will last. The state maintains that the nitrogen method is constitutional.

Marks did not block the state from executing Lee with one of Alabama’s other approved methods, the electric chair or lethal injection.

Nitrogen executions introduced in the state 2 years ago

Alabama began using nitrogen gas to carry out some executions in 2024. The method involves strapping a respirator to a person’s face and replacing breathable air with pure nitrogen gas, causing death from lack of oxygen.

Nitrogen has been used in eight executions in the United States — seven times in Alabama and once in Louisiana. Lee was scheduled to be the ninth.

During the previous Alabama nitrogen executions, the inmates shook, pulled at the restraints and exhibited labored breathing. During the state’s last execution by nitrogen gas, 30 minutes elapsed between Anthony Boyd exhibiting signs of being impacted by the gas and state officials closing the curtain to the viewing room to signal the execution was complete.

The state has maintained that the method is constitutional and causes no more suffering than other execution methods.

Lee, who is currently housed at William C. Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore, was convicted of two counts of capital murder for killing Ellis and Thompson while robbing a pawnshop on Dec. 12, 1998.

Prosecutors said Lee entered Jimmy’s Pawnshop with a sawed-off shotgun and shot Ellis, the owner, and Thompson, an employee.

Alabama no longer allows judicial overrides in capital cases

A jury voted 7-5 to give Lee a sentence of life imprisonment. However a judge overrode that and sentenced him to death.

Alabama ended the practice of judicial override in 2017 and no longer allows a judge to disregard a jury’s sentencing decision in death penalty cases.

Bestselling author John Grisham called on Gov. Kay Ivey to honor the jury’s decision and commute Lee’s sentence to life without parole.

“The practice of a judge overriding a jury was declared unconstitutional and so indefensible that Alabama itself abolished it in 2017,” Grisham said in a statement. “Jeffery Lee’s jury made its decision, the Alabama Legislature later agreed that juries, not judges, should decide life or death sentences.”

Ivey, for her part, said Thursday night: “While I am disappointed the Supreme Court did not allow the state to proceed with Lee’s chosen method of execution, I remain committed to ensuring that justice is ultimately served for his victims.”

___

This story was first published June 11, 2026. It was updated June 12, 2026, to correct the judge’s ruling on execution methods. The judge did not block the use of the electric chair or lethal injection.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — A New Mexico judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the state’s universal childcare program, allowing the ambitious and closely watched experiment to continue.

Attorneys for former Republican gubernatorial candidate Duke Rodriguez and other plaintiffs had questioned the process used by Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s administration to eliminate an income cap and co-pays for childcare assistance before the Legislature had a chance to weigh in or approve funding.

Attorneys representing Lujan Grisham and the state’s childcare agency argued that lawmakers have since authorized and funded the program’s expansion, rendering the legal challenge moot.

District Judge Elaine Lujan agreed, tossing the lawsuit and allowing the state to continue footing the daycare bill for families regardless of income. She also found that Rodriguez and his co-plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit.

Rodriquez’s attorneys indicated they will appeal the judge’s decision.

“Just because (Lujan Grisham) thinks she has a great idea doesn’t mean she gets to write the law and enforce the law,” plaintiffs attorney Jacob Candelaria said after Thursday’s hearing.

Thursday’s ruling prevented a financial headache for many childcare businesses and for families who have rebalanced household budgets around free childcare.

Lujan Grisham applauded the ruling.

“Today, Second Judicial District Judge Elaine Lujan dismissed a frivolous challenge to New Mexico’s universal child care program. This program is lawful, and it will continue to serve New Mexico families,” she said in a statement on Facebook. “New Mexicans deserved better than a lawsuit that put them through weeks of unnecessary anxiety over a program they count on. The judge’s ruling makes it clear: New Mexicans can plan their families, finances and careers with the confidence that universal child care is here to stay.”

The challenge came as New Mexico looks to cement its place as the first U.S. state to cover daycare bills for all families regardless of income, provided parents or legal guardians are working, in school or qualify for an exemption. The stakes extend nationwide as policymakers from New York to California look for models to reduce costs for families and expand public investment in childcare.

During the hearing, Candelaria told the judge that the governor’s move to establish the program without the Legislature weighing in was “a fundamental perversion of the separation of powers” and that New Mexicans’ constitutional interests needed to be protected.

Holly Agajanian, the governor’s chief general counsel, suggested that the plaintiffs were asking the court to referee a policy disagreement on the merits of universal child care.

“We are not in a constitutional crisis,” Agajanian said.

Lujan Grisham signed legislation in February enshrining the program into law, provided state finances remain healthy.

New Mexico’s program, which is financed in large part with revenue from oil and gas production in the state, was among the nation’s most generous before November’s expansion, waiving costs for families making up to 400% of the federal poverty rate or roughly $132,000 per year for a family of four.

Legislative analysts have raised questions about the sustainability of New Mexico’s expanded program, noting earlier this year that the state’s Early Childhood Education and Care Department started overspending just weeks into the November launch.

This week, the state agency proposed new regulations aimed at shoring up the program’s sustainability. Potential guardrails include copayments for higher-income families in the event of a significant drop in oil prices or enrollment in free childcare surging beyond state projections.

At first glance, a recent Democratic primary in California’s Central Valley was just another skirmish between the party’s progressive wing and its more moderate establishment.

This time, the contest was won by populist insurgent Randy Villegas. But what sets the outcome apart from similar primary battles is the stakes.

This wasn’t a fight over a safe Democratic seat. Villegas will be the standard bearer against Republican Rep. David Valadao, one of the most promising targets for Democrats desperate to retake the U.S. House majority and slow down President Donald Trump.

The November race will test the theory, popular on the left, that voters will flock to progressive, anti-establishment candidates even in places that have traditionally favored Republicans.

“A populist message isn’t just for blue districts or certain parts of the country,” said Ravi Mangla, a spokesperson for the Working Families Party, one of the progressive groups that backed Villegas. “It can win anywhere people feel like politics is not working for them.”

“More than ever, voters across the political spectrum want candidates who are willing to stand up to power,” Mangla said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee dismissed Villegas’ chances, even though the state’s Democratic leaders recently redrew the district to make it easier to flip this year.

“Democrats know Villegas can’t beat Congressman David Valadao, as he embraces the same failed policies that have made California more expensive, less safe, and harder for working families in the Central Valley,” said spokesperson Christian Martinez.

Progressives want a shot in key races

The Villegas victory comes during an election season in which substantial parts of the Democratic base are rejecting the candidates that party bosses see as their best shot at winning power in Congress.

Graham Platner overwhelmingly won the Democratic Senate primary in Maine this week after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s preferred nominee, Gov. Janet Mills, dropped out with lackluster support weeks before the election.

A combat veteran and oyster farmer, Platner has never held elected office before, and he’s endured controversies over past relationships with women, inflammatory online posts and a since-covered tattoo recognized as a Nazi symbol.

In Michigan, Rep. Haley Stevens is entangled in a three-way contest for the Democratic Senate nomination against state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and progressive favorite Abdul El-Sayed. The primary is Aug. 4, and El-Sayed recently scored a major endorsement from the United Auto Workers union, a political powerhouse in the state that is home to the U.S. auto industry.

And in Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race, progressive Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan is in a fierce battle with U.S. Rep. Angie Craig, who is backed by labor unions, LGBTQ groups and moderate Democrats ahead of the primary on Aug. 11.

Another test will come on June 30 in Colorado, where progressive Manny Rutinel faces establishment-backed Shannon Bird in the Democratic primary to take on Republican Rep. Gabe Evans. Like Valadao, Evans is a top target for Democrats. And like the California race, the Colorado contest hinges on questions about who is most electable in November.

Democrats try to unite around their nominee

Valadao finished first and Villegas second in California’s primary, in which the top two candidates move on to the general election.

When early voting began about a month before the primary, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took the unusual step of publicly signaling support for Jasmeet Bains, a doctor and state Assembly member who had lined up support from a bevy of elected officials, unions and health care groups.

“Dr. Jasmeet Bains has fought on the frontlines of health crises and built a track record of delivering for the Central Valley,” DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene said in a statement at the time. She did not criticize Villegas, but the public support for his rival was a powerful signal to Democratic donors and activists that the party believed Bains was a stronger candidate. Congressional leaders and the party apparatus they control rarely wade overtly into contested primaries for open seats.

The decision to back Bains infuriated many on the left, who saw it as another example of Washington insiders being out of touch with both the Democratic base and disaffected voters who helped power Trump’s victories.

“I think the moderates are wrong. People don’t want status quo, pro-corporate candidates,” said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, a progressive group that grew out of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign. “They want people who are going to shake things up.”

Now that Villegas won, Democrats in Washington now insist he’s a strong candidate who is well-positioned to defeat Valadao. They point to the grassroots support that propelled him through the primary and the combined 59% that the Democrats got in the primary, significantly more than the 41% who voted for Valadao, though many more voters will turn out for the general election.

If the snub created tension between Villegas and his party, both sides buried it by Wednesday and presented a united front. California members of Congress, including some who had backed Bains, issued effusive statements, and he was magnanimous in return.

“We’re all in to elect Randy and flip this seat,” said Anna Elsasser, a spokesperson for the DCCC, the arm of the Democratic Party focused on winning House races. The district is “a must-win seat for the House majority, and we are confident in winning with Randy as the Democratic nominee,” she added.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Los Angeles jury on Wednesday ordered California socialite Rebecca Grossman to pay $21 million in punitive damages to the parents of two young brothers who died when her car struck them in a hit-and-run collision in 2020.

Former Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Scott Erickson must also pay $1.17 million in punitive damages.

That is in addition to the $176 million in damages for wrongful death and emotional distress that jurors ordered Grossman and Erickson to pay parents Nancy and Karim Iskander last week, after finding them negligent in the deaths of Mark, 11, and Jacob, 8.

“This verdict sends a clear message that everyone must be held accountable when their selfish actions put innocent lives at risk,” Brian Panish, the Iskander family’s attorney, said in a statement Wednesday.

Erickson’s attorney, Jeff Braun, said they respected the verdict.

“In the coming days, we will review the verdict with our client and discuss the appropriate path forward,” Braun said in a statement. “Today, however, our focus is on acknowledging the extraordinary loss the Iskander family has endured. We extend our sincere condolences to them and continue to keep them in our thoughts.”

Grossman’s attorney, Esther Holm, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Grossman was sentenced in 2024 to serve 15 years to life in prison after being convicted of second-degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter and hit-and-run driving in a separate criminal trial. She is a co-founder of the Grossman Burn Foundation and the wife of a prominent burn doctor.

The boys’ parents also filed lawsuits in civil court against both Grossman and Erickson, who was driving ahead of her when the Iskander brothers were killed. That trial began in April.

The deadly crash occurred on the evening of Sept. 29, 2020, in Westlake Village, a city on the western edge of Los Angeles County.

Panish, the Iskander family’s attorney, argued that Grossman and Erickson were both driving recklessly after drinking margaritas together. The two were dating at a time when Grossman and her husband were separated.

Panish said Grossman was driving 73 mph (117 kph) when her car struck the boys in a crosswalk on a road where the posted speed limit was 45 mph (72 kph).

He said Grossman was following Erickson, who was also speeding and narrowly missed the family.

Holm, Grossman’s attorney, denied that her client was intoxicated. She said Grossman was distracted when she saw the boys’ mother dive out of the way of Erickson’s vehicle.

Braun, Erickson’s attorney, called the boys’ deaths a tragedy but emphasized that the vehicle he was driving “made no contact with the children.”