Courts Clash Over Evidence, Abortion Pills, and OpenAI
This week's legal battles include major rulings on abortion drugs, criminal evidence, redistricting, and Elon Musk’s OpenAI lawsuit.
It was a busy week in the courts. This week’s Lawsplainer covers the curious decision of a New York court to suppress some evidence seized after the arrest of Luigi Mangione—the alleged assassin of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. We also address the indictment of a former federal prosecutor. She has been charged with stealing copies of the unreleased report of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
The Supreme Court has been busy again—allowing abortion pills to be distributed to Louisiana – despite powerful dissents from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. And finally, Virginia’s radical gerrymander plan fails again, and Elon Musk loses his lawsuit against OpenAI.
Image by Getty Images
Luigi Mangione – Court rules evidence from his backpack cannot be used against him.
Luigi Mangione is awaiting trial in New York for the December 2024 murder of Brian Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare. The shooting took place outside the Hilton hotel in midtown Manhattan. Five days after the murder, Mangione was discovered at a McDonald’s in Pennsylvania. After he was detained at the McDonald’s, police searched his backpack and recovered a number of items, including a nine-millimeter handgun, a loaded magazine, a silencer, a notebook, a passport, and cash. The firearm, magazine, and silencer recovered from Mangione are pictured below.
Here is video footage of his initial interaction with the police, where he even lied to them about his name—claiming he was “Mark Rosario.”
Mangione’s attorneys moved to suppress the evidence that was recovered from his backpack as well as his statements made to law enforcement during his arrest at McDonald’s. On May 18, 2026, a New York court granted that request in part, suppressing the evidence found during the search of Mangione’s backpack at the McDonald’s, “including the [loaded] magazine, cellphone, passport, wallet and computer chip.” The gun, the knife, the USB drive, and other items – including a red notebook which contained his confession – were discovered as part of a valid inventory search after Mangione was processed, and the prosecution can use that evidence against him.
With respect to Mangione’s statements, the court is suppressing his responses to questions concerning: (1) why he had a fake ID; and (2) why he lied about his name. These are excluded because the trial court determined that at this point of the interaction – where he was surrounded by eight police officers – he was essentially in custody, as “a reasonable person would not believe they were free to leave.” However, any responses given by Mangione in the approximately 20 minutes before the determination of custody can be used by the prosecution. These responses included Mangione giving a fake name and stating he was from the “DMV” (Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia).
In making these rulings, the court applied New York law, even though the arrest and search occurred in Pennsylvania. The court reasoned that New York “has a paramount interest in the application of its law” and that “procedural and evidentiary issues are governed by the law of the forum state.” New York law on the suppression issue is generally stricter than other states. The prosecution argued that the police followed Pennsylvania law in “good faith.” The court, however, observed that is not the test under New York law and that “New York does not have a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule” (which prohibits prosecutors from using evidence that was obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights).
The warrantless search by the Pennsylvania police, according to the court, did not meet any justification under New York law. Though the police would have inevitably discovered the loaded magazine and other items that were suppressed, that does not change New York’s application of the exclusionary rule.
Ultimately, this is only a small win for Mangione – one which is unlikely to change the outcome of the case. The evidence against Mangione is overwhelming. His gun was a match for the murder weapon, he was on camera in the area, and his fingerprints were found near the scene. But more importantly, his notebook, which will be used as evidence, detailed his plan to “wack” Thompson as part of his grievances against the health insurance industry and wealthy executives.
Image by Getty Images
Former federal prosecutor indicted for stealing sealed report of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
In an indictment unsealed on May 20, 2026, Carmen Lineberger – the former Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida – has been charged with stealing the unreleased report of Special Counsel Jack Smith that had been ordered sealed.
Judge Cannon presided over Special Counsel Smith’s failed prosecution of President Trump, for documents he kept at Mar A Lago. After dismissing the case against Mr. Trump, Judge Cannon ordered Smith’s report to be sealed. She prohibited DOJ employees from “releasing, sharing, or transmitting [the report] outside the Department of Justice.”
In December 2025, Assistant U.S. Attorney Carmen Lineberger downloaded Special Counsel Smith’s report and altered its file name to “Bundt_Cake_Recipe.pdf.” She then sent the report to her personal Gmail account. She took similar steps to share an internal DOJ memo with her personal Gmail account, titling the compiled document as “Chocolate_cake_recipe.pdf.”
According to FBI Director Kash Patel, Lineberger altered the names of the documents “to conceal them from record searches.”
She faces two counts of theft of government property; one count of destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations; and one count of concealment, removal, or mutilation of public records.
Image by KUOW, Ellis O’Neal
The Supreme Court allows abortion drugs to continue to be distributed by mail.
The Supreme Court has granted a stay of (or put a hold on) the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that prevented the distribution of abortion-inducing medication by mail.
We first discussed this case on May 7, explaining how President Biden’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) altered its safety and reporting guidelines to allow for distribution of the abortion drug mifepristone by mail. The FDA guidelines under the Biden Administration were not changed due to the increased safety of the drug or because of exhaustive studies, but rather because President Biden demanded complete access to abortion drugs after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, which gave the States the ability to regulate abortion.
The Supreme Court’s order granting the applications for the stay provides no reasoning or justification for its decision. Specifically, the Supreme Court stayed the decision of the Fifth Circuit—meaning that the abortion drugs will be allowed to be distributed by mail while litigation continues in the Fifth Circuit and perhaps through the Supreme Court.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the Court’s decision. Justice Thomas observed that the drug companies “have not satisfied their burden for securing interim relief,” as they merely alleged the “Fifth Circuit’s order would reduce profits they derive from selling mifepristone.” He noted that under the Comstock Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1461, “it is a criminal offense to ship mifepristone for use in abortions.” They cannot “be irreparably harmed by a court order that makes it more difficult to commit crimes.”
Justice Alito found the Court’s “unreasoned order” to be “remarkable.” He decried the “scheme” to undermine the Court’s decision in Dobbs and thwart Louisiana’s efforts to limit abortions.
Image by Agencies Images
Updates
To follow-up on our previous reporting, here are some updates on several of the most significant cases we have covered:
As expected, the Supreme Court has denied an application to stay the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling. So, the Virginia legislature’s effort at “partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts in the Commonwealth” fails again.
Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, its leadership, and Microsoft has been dismissed after jurors concluded Musk did not bring his suit until after the three-year statute of limitations expired. Musk alleged that he was intentionally deceived that OpenAI would remain a non-profit entity when, in fact, its leadership created for-profit entities to loot OpenAI’s assets. Musk is expected to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, but it may be a difficult decision to overturn.