U.S. Attorney Credits Crime Surge
With Less Violence in Washington
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced new crime statistics last week for Washington, D.C., that appear to justify controversial Trump Administration crime surges that included sending the National Guard into major cities.
She said the homicide rate is down 60 percent since the crime surge in Washington started last summer. All violent crime is down about 30 percent in the past year.
Her statistics are unverified by other sources. Metropolitan Police Department statistics showed homicides were down 32 percent in the past year.
Pirro’s announcement appeared to be an endorsement of Trump administration policy at a time when it is creating serious backlash in other places.
"To the criminals who thought D.C. was an easy target, those days are over," Pirro said at a press conference.
In one example of the backlash, the mayor of Minneapolis said last week he wanted Immigration and Customs Enforcement out of his city hours after one of its agents shot and killed a protester.
“We do not want you here,” Mayor Jacob Frey said at a press conference.
In other cities, such as Los Angeles, New Orleans and Portland, evidence that crime decreased because of bigger law enforcement assisted by the National Guard is mixed and overshadowed by longer-term crime trends that were already underway before Donald Trump was reelected.
Each of the cities is reporting falling violent crime rates but critics of the law enforcement surges say they had been dropping for about three years, largely as a result of the end of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Trump’s authority to send in the National Guard suffered a setback Dec. 23 when the Supreme Court ruled against a deployment in Chicago.
The Supreme Court agreed with lower courts that the president had not gained the approval he needed from Congress. Trump then said he would withdraw troops from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland.
Pirro said she was uncertain how much longer the National Guard would remain in Washington, which is a federal district rather than a state.
"I can tell you that I respect them for what they are doing,” Pirro said. “They are making a difference. Everyone in the district should thank God they are here because they are the reason homicides are down, they are the reason carjackings are down, they are the reason thugs are now in custody."
She also said carjackings were down 68 percent.
The District of Columbia previously reported one of the nation’s highest carjacking rates for urban areas, peaking near 140 incidents in one month in 2023.
"Bottom line, we are prosecuting crime in the district like never before with real consequences, real cases, real accountability, and for the first time in years, violent offenders are being prosecuted aggressively," Pirro said.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Maduro’s Prosecution Creates Alarm
Over Precedent for International Law
The arrest and prosecution of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro led to an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council last week that included strong criticism of the United States for an alleged violation of international law.
Some U.N. delegates cite provisions of the United Nations Charter that prohibit use of force against other countries’ territorial sovereignty except in very limited situations, such as self-defense or with a U.N. Security Council authorization.
Critics of the Jan. 3 U.S. raid, such as U.N. Secretary General António Guterres, say the United States lacked both justifications.
Guterres said the abduction and prosecution of Maduro sets a “dangerous precedent” under international law.
International law generally protects sitting heads of state from prosecution in foreign courts while in office. However, the United States does not recognize Maduro as the legitimate Venezuelan president based on evidence of his election interference.
The lack of recognition for his presidency is central to the Trump administration argument that he forfeited sovereign immunity.
Even if Maduro’s removal violated international law, U.S. federal courts may still proceed with prosecution under U.S. Supreme Court’s long-standing Ker-Frisbie precedent, which has allowed prosecutions regardless of how defendants were brought into the U.S.
The Ker-Frisbie doctrine is based on two previous high-profile Supreme Court cases. They are Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, (1886); and Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952).
Marc Weller, director of Cambridge University’s International Law Programme, argues that the arrest of Maduro threatens the post-World War II legal order if the prosecution is allowed to continue.
Columbia University Law Professor Matthew Waxman said a criminal indictment alone would not authorize use of force abroad under international law.
Maduro made his first appearance in federal court in New York last week. He pleaded not guilty.
A judge read the charges against him, namely narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.
The indictment against him says Maduro and his co-conspirators “provided law enforcement cover and logistical support” to drug trafficking groups, such as the Sinaloa Cartel and Tren de Aragua gang.
Venezuela’s government media outlets and officials are condemning the U.S. strike as an illegal kidnapping and violation of their sovereignty. The U.S. government calls Maduro a “narco-terrorist” who profited from illegal drug trafficking and emptied Venezuelan prisons into the United States.
He faces the possibility of life in prison if he is convicted.
As Maduro was led to court by U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency officers, he told them, “Happy New Year.”
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Senator Kelly Vows to Fight Censure
Over His Dissent on Military Policy
Senator Mark Kelly says he will fight a Defense Department proposal to reduce his pension after he was accused of "sedition" for telling military personnel in a video that they should disobey "illegal orders.”
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said last week he is beginning administrative proceedings that could lower the senator's rank and benefits.
The dispute has set off bigger questions about constitutional authorities of Congress and the president.
In November, Kelly was one of six high-level Democratic lawmakers who accused the Trump administration of exceeding its authority following military strikes against Venezuelan boats suspected of carrying illegal drugs. More than 100 of the suspected drug smugglers have been killed.
“Our laws are clear,” Kelly said in the 90-second video. “You can refuse illegal orders.”
The Arizona Democrat is a retired Navy captain who flew 39 combat missions as a naval aviator. He also was an astronaut for four spaceflights.
Despite his retirement, he still receives benefits that make him subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and discipline for misconduct. The other lawmakers in the video served only briefly in the military and do not receive pensions.
Kelly says the retaliation against him puts all current and former military personnel at risk for speaking out on ethics. He described the dispute as a First Amendment free speech issue.
The legality of President Donald Trump’s use of the military against Venezuela remains a disputed issue in Congress.
Trump claims authority under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which authorizes the president to order the armed forces to respond to sudden attacks or imminent threats without prior congressional approval. Limited airstrikes or rescue missions could be an example.
Some members of Congress – such as Kelly – say Trump’s extensive use of the military requires congressional approval under restrictions of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
It says the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of sending U.S. forces into hostilities and that they must be withdrawn within 60 days unless Congress declares war, extends the deadline for troop withdrawal or approves a statute allowing limited use of the military for a specific purpose.
Congress has given no formal approval of Trump’s actions, which led Kelly and other lawmakers to say the Venezuelan strikes are illegal.
Hegseth said in a statement posted on X that “Senator Mark Kelly — and five other members of Congress — released a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline.”
He issued a “formal Letter of Censure” that was put in Kelly’s permanent personnel file. Kelly has 30 days to respond to the “retirement grade determination” before he faces the possible disciplinary action.
The letter was released by Kelly’s office last week. It accuses Kelly of engaging in “a sustained pattern of public statements” beginning in June 2025 that described lawful military operations as “illegal.”
Kelly blasted the censure as “outrageous” politically motivated retaliation. He said his defense of the United States and the Constitution includes “the First Amendment rights of every American to speak out.”
“I will fight this with everything I’ve got — not for myself, but to send a message back that Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump don’t get to decide what Americans in this country get to say about their government,” Kelly said in a statement.
Other lawmakers say the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution is an additional legal issue. The clause is supposed to protect lawmakers from liability for their official statements and actions.
Trump wrote on social media after the video was posted online that the lawmakers' statements should be “punishable by DEATH.”
A White House spokesperson later retracted, saying the president did not literally intend to have them killed.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
D.C. and Maryland Sue to Reinstate
Federal Grants for Low-Income Students
The District of Columbia and Maryland are leading a lawsuit to force the U.S. Education Department to reinstate Full Service Community Schools grants.
The grants offer academic, health and social services, primarily to low-income students and to rural communities. The program started in 2008. In fiscal 2025, the program was funded nationally at $150 million.
The lawsuit filed in federal court in Baltimore alleges the grant cancellations violate the federal Administrative Procedure Act. North Carolina is joining in the lawsuit. The American Federation of Teachers has filed a similar lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
In fiscal 2022, the University of Maryland at Baltimore was awarded a FSCS grant of approximately $1.9 million. Its grants were scheduled to continue through 2027.
For fiscal 2022 and 2023, District of Columbia Public Schools was awarded five-year FSCS grants totaling nearly $5 million.
“Plaintiffs’ FSCS projects have provided critical support to students and families,” the lawsuit says. “By way of example, UMB’s project has led to increased attendance at two Baltimore high schools and facilitated significant direct financial support for students in need, such as housing assistance.”
The grants also pay for workforce development, college mentoring and academic tutoring.
The Education Department denies the grants are being eliminated. Instead, the money is being redirected to programs for special needs students.
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten questioned the wisdom of the Education Department’s decision.
The grants “fund crucial medical, dental, nutrition, after school tutoring, and enrichment programs that increase academic achievement and attendance, boost high school graduation rates, and reduce achievement gaps,” she said. “And the data show that for every dollar spent on community schools, there is a $7 return on investment.”
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Transportation Dept. Wants to Eliminate
D.C.’s Automated Traffic Cameras
The U.S. Transportation Department has put together a proposal to eliminate the automated traffic enforcement cameras that generate millions of dollars a year for Washington, D.C.
The proposal is awaiting Office of Management and Budget approval before being included in a surface transportation bill Congress intends to pass this year, according to a report that originated with Politico.
Some members of Congress say the fines that most typically range between $100 and $500 are intended to help Washington’s budget rather than improve traffic safety. They call the expansive use of the cameras a violation of due process.
“Cities like Washington, D.C. that depend on automated traffic enforcement revenue to balance their budgets are proof that the policy isn’t about the safety of residents and visitors,” said Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., in a statement. “It’s about fleecing people without representation or fair due process. It’s un-American and should be abolished.”
The move to get rid of the cameras is angering D.C. Council members, such as Charles Allen, D-Ward 6. They acknowledge the cameras generate revenue but they say traffic safety is an integral part of the program.
“They save lives, and rolling them back would make our streets more dangerous for everyone who drives, walks, rolls, bikes, or takes transit,” Allen wrote on his website.
The Automated Safety Camera program started in 1999 with a few cameras at a few key intersections. Under Mayor Muriel Bowser’s Vision Zero to eliminate traffic injuries and deaths, the number of the cameras has grown to 546 spread throughout Washington.
There were 47 traffic fatalities in Washington in 1999, according to Metropolitan Police Department statistics. Preliminary figures show there were 25 last year.
The cameras generated $267.3 million for Washington in fiscal 2025, according to D.C.’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
The D.C. government claims the camera program is “designed to create safer roadways for all road users in the District of Columbia.”
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.