Jon Seidel
LightNews LightNews
banner
jonseidel.bsky.social
Jon Seidel
@jonseidel.bsky.social
12K followers 89 following 1.5K posts
Federal Courts Reporter, @chicago.suntimes.com
Posts Replies Media Videos
jonseidel.bsky.social
Blagojevich seeks ex-ComEd CEO’s clemency from conspiracy conviction

Kade Heather reports: chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-corr...
Blagojevich seeks ex-ComEd CEO’s clemency from bribery scheme conviction
Anne Pramaggiore and three others were convicted of a nearly decade-long scheme to bribe former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan in exchange for legislation that favored ComEd. President Trump h...
chicago.suntimes.com
December 31, 2025 at 10:30 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Trump says he's dropping push for National Guard in Chicago, LA and Portland, Oregon, for now: chicago.suntimes.com/nation-world...
Trump says he's dropping push for National Guard in Chicago, LA and Portland, Oregon, for now
President Donald Trump said in a social media post Wednesday that he’s removing the Guard troops for now. “We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar a...
chicago.suntimes.com
December 31, 2025 at 10:21 PM
Reposted by Jon Seidel
barrybutler9.bsky.social
25 Favorite Moments from this past year. The Calder Flamingo on this early January morning at Chicago's Federal Plaza. 12 of 25
December 30, 2025 at 6:06 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Ex-CEO of Chicago Public Media saw $900,000 payout in 2024 as company engaged in staff cuts, IRS filings show.

David Roeder reports via @chicago.suntimes.com: chicago.suntimes.com/work/2025/12...
Ex-CEO of Chicago Public Media saw $900,000 payout in 2024, IRS filings show
Compensation for Matt Moog rose as the company slashed jobs at the Chicago Sun-Times and at WBEZ.
chicago.suntimes.com
December 31, 2025 at 2:21 AM
jonseidel.bsky.social
More than 2 1/2 years after conviction, Michael McClain is in custody of the Bureau of Prisons, having been ordered to report Monday. The longtime ally of ex-IL House Speaker Mike Madigan was sentenced to 2 years for conspiracy.

Background: chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-corr...
December 30, 2025 at 2:20 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Illinois prevails at U.S. Supreme Court on National Guard deployment, for now.

UPDATED @chicago.suntimes.com story w/ @tinasfon.bsky.social: chicago.suntimes.com/donald-trump...
U.S. Supreme Court sides against Trump, won't lift block on National Guard deployment in Illinois
The decision, appearing on the high court’s “emergency” or “shadow” docket, is the first from the justices addressing President Donald Trump’s efforts to deploy National Guard troops into American cit...
chicago.suntimes.com
December 24, 2025 at 12:20 AM
jonseidel.bsky.social
FLAGGING this footnote from Justice Samuel Alito:

"I would not take for granted that the Posse Comitatus Act applies to federalized National Guard units …."
3 I would not take for granted that the Posse Comitatus Act applies to federalized National Guard units, another question that this Court has never addressed. Indeed, the Act’s enumeration of other military com- ponents—“the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, [and] the Space Force”—makes the omission of the National Guard quite no- table. If, as the Court states, the term “regular forces” in §12406 likely means the military, Congress clearly views the military and federalized National Guard units as distinct entities. Otherwise, §12406 would non- sensically say that the President may call up the National Guard when the National Guard is unable to execute the laws. It is therefore not obvious that the Posse Comitatus Act would ever apply to federalized National Guard units, as opposed to the regular military. As §12405 makes clear, some of the laws and regulations governing “members of the Regular Army or Regular Air Force” are not applicable to the Na- tional Guard “when called into Federal service.” 10 U. S. C. §12405.
December 23, 2025 at 9:34 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
From Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker:
Statement from Governor Pritzker on the Supreme Court’s Decision in Trump v. Illinois CHICAGO — Today, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker released the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Trump Administration’s request to deploy National Guard troops in the state: “Today is a big win for Illinois and American democracy. I am glad the Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump did not have the authority to deploy the federalized guard in Illinois. This is an important step in curbing the Trump Administration's consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism. “American cities, suburbs, and communities should not have to faced masked federal agents asking for their papers, judging them for how they look or sound, and living in fear that President can deploy the military to their streets. The brave men and women of our National Guard should never be used for political theater and deserve to be with their families and communities, especially during the holidays, and ready to serve overseas or at home when called upon during times of immense need. “While we welcome this ruling, we also are clear-eyed that the Trump Administration’s pursuit for unchecked power is continuing across the country. Illinois will remain vigilant, defend the rights of our people, and stand up to further abuses of authority by Donald Trump and his cronies.”
December 23, 2025 at 9:19 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Statement from Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul:
ATTORNEY GENERAL RAOUL ISSUES STATEMENT AFTER SUPREME COURT DENIES STAY OF LOWER COURT’S ORDER BARRING TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT IN CHICAGO Chicago – Attorney General Kwame Raoul today issued the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a stay of the lower court’s order barring the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops in Chicago. “Nearly 250 years ago, the framers of our nation’s Constitution carefully divided responsibility over the country’s militia, today’s U.S. National Guard, between the federal government and the states – believing it impossible that a president would use one state’s militia against another state. The extremely limited circumstances under which the federal government can call up the militia over a state's objection do not exist in Illinois, and I am pleased that the streets of Illinois will remain free of armed National Guard members as our litigation continues in the courts.”
December 23, 2025 at 9:13 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
U.S. Supreme Court sides against Trump, won't lift block on National Guard deployment in Illinois

DEVELOPING from @chicago.suntimes.com: chicago.suntimes.com/donald-trump...
U.S. Supreme Court sides against Trump, won't lift block on National Guard deployment in Illinois
The decision, appearing on the high court’s “emergency” or “shadow” docket, is the first from the justices addressing President Donald Trump’s efforts to deploy National Guard troops into American cit...
chicago.suntimes.com
December 23, 2025 at 8:47 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurring on narrower grounds.
jonseidel.bsky.social Jon Seidel @jonseidel.bsky.social · 11d
#BREAKING The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the State of Illinois on National Guard deployment.

Under the law invoked by President Trump, he must be unable "with the regular military" to "execute the laws of the United States," it finds.

Full ruling here: cst.brightspotcdn.com/80/88/05a75e...
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 25A443 _________________ DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. ILLINOIS, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [December 23, 2025] Federal immigration-enforcement efforts have encoun- tered significant resistance, as well as some violence, in Chicago. According to the Government, federal officers have been obstructed, threatened, and assaulted as they at- tempt to perform their duties. The Government also alleges that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing facility in Broadview, Illinois, has been the site of frequent and sometimes violent protests, damaging federal property and threatening the safety of federal officers. These at- tacks, the Government says, have greatly impeded its ef- forts to enforce the immigration laws. On October 4, 2025, the President called 300 members of the Illinois National Guard into active federal service to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois, particu- larly in and around Chicago. The following day, members of the Texas National Guard were also federalized and sent to Chicago. In calling forth the Guard, the President relied on 10 U. S. C. §12406(3), which empowers him to federalize members of the Guard if he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” The United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of Illinois entered a temporary restraining order bar- ring the federalization and deployment of the Guard in Illi- nois. The Seventh Circuit denied in relevant part the Government’s motion for a stay, permitting the Guard to remain federalized within Illinois but maintaining the bar on deployment. The Government asked this Court to stay the District Court’s order. After the response and reply were filed, JUSTICE BARRETT referred the application to the Court. We directed the parties to file supplemental letter briefs on an issue that the District Court had addressed but the parties’ initial briefs had not: the meaning of the term “regular forces” in §12406(3). In its supplemental brief, the Govern- ment argues that the term refers to civilian law enforce- ment officers, such as those employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Federal Protective Service. Respondents, echoing the District Court, maintain that the term refers to the regular forces of the United States mili- tary. We conclude that the term “regular forces” in §12406(3) likely refers to the regular forces of the United States mili- tary. This interpretation means that to call the Guard into active federal service under §12406(3), the President must be “unable” with the regular military “to execute the laws of the United States.” Because the statute requires an assess- ment of the military’s ability to execute the laws, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws. Such circumstances are exceptional: Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from “execut[ing] the laws” “except in cases and under circumstances ex- pressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” 18 U. S. C. §1385. So before the President can federalize the Guard under §12406(3), he likely must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the reg- ular military and must be “unable” with those forces to per- form that function. At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The President has not in- voked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. Instead, he relies on inherent constitu- tional authority that, according to the Government, allows him to use the military to protect federal personnel and property. But the Government also claims—consistent with the longstanding view of the Executive Branch—that performing such protective functions does not constitute “execut[ing] the laws” within the meaning of the Posse Comitatus Act. See Supp. Letter Reply Brief for Applicants 8; 1 Supp. Op. OLC 343, n. 1 (1971) (collecting sources). If that is correct, it is hard to see how performing those func- tions could constitute “execut[ing] the laws” under §12406(3). See Azar v. Allina Health Services, 587 U. S. 566, 574 (2019) (“This Court does not lightly assume that Congress silently attaches different meanings to the same term in the same or related statutes”). Thus, at least in this posture, the Government has not carried its burden to show that §12406(3) permits the President to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect fed- eral personnel and property in Illinois. We need not and do not address the reviewability of findings made by the Pres- ident under §12406(3) or any other statute. The application for stay is denied.
December 23, 2025 at 8:47 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
#BREAKING The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the State of Illinois on National Guard deployment.

Under the law invoked by President Trump, he must be unable "with the regular military" to "execute the laws of the United States," it finds.

Full ruling here: cst.brightspotcdn.com/80/88/05a75e...
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 25A443 _________________ DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. ILLINOIS, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [December 23, 2025] Federal immigration-enforcement efforts have encoun- tered significant resistance, as well as some violence, in Chicago. According to the Government, federal officers have been obstructed, threatened, and assaulted as they at- tempt to perform their duties. The Government also alleges that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing facility in Broadview, Illinois, has been the site of frequent and sometimes violent protests, damaging federal property and threatening the safety of federal officers. These at- tacks, the Government says, have greatly impeded its ef- forts to enforce the immigration laws. On October 4, 2025, the President called 300 members of the Illinois National Guard into active federal service to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois, particu- larly in and around Chicago. The following day, members of the Texas National Guard were also federalized and sent to Chicago. In calling forth the Guard, the President relied on 10 U. S. C. §12406(3), which empowers him to federalize members of the Guard if he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” The United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of Illinois entered a temporary restraining order bar- ring the federalization and deployment of the Guard in Illi- nois. The Seventh Circuit denied in relevant part the Government’s motion for a stay, permitting the Guard to remain federalized within Illinois but maintaining the bar on deployment. The Government asked this Court to stay the District Court’s order. After the response and reply were filed, JUSTICE BARRETT referred the application to the Court. We directed the parties to file supplemental letter briefs on an issue that the District Court had addressed but the parties’ initial briefs had not: the meaning of the term “regular forces” in §12406(3). In its supplemental brief, the Govern- ment argues that the term refers to civilian law enforce- ment officers, such as those employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Federal Protective Service. Respondents, echoing the District Court, maintain that the term refers to the regular forces of the United States mili- tary. We conclude that the term “regular forces” in §12406(3) likely refers to the regular forces of the United States mili- tary. This interpretation means that to call the Guard into active federal service under §12406(3), the President must be “unable” with the regular military “to execute the laws of the United States.” Because the statute requires an assess- ment of the military’s ability to execute the laws, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws. Such circumstances are exceptional: Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from “execut[ing] the laws” “except in cases and under circumstances ex- pressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” 18 U. S. C. §1385. So before the President can federalize the Guard under §12406(3), he likely must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the reg- ular military and must be “unable” with those forces to per- form that function. At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The President has not in- voked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. Instead, he relies on inherent constitu- tional authority that, according to the Government, allows him to use the military to protect federal personnel and property. But the Government also claims—consistent with the longstanding view of the Executive Branch—that performing such protective functions does not constitute “execut[ing] the laws” within the meaning of the Posse Comitatus Act. See Supp. Letter Reply Brief for Applicants 8; 1 Supp. Op. OLC 343, n. 1 (1971) (collecting sources). If that is correct, it is hard to see how performing those func- tions could constitute “execut[ing] the laws” under §12406(3). See Azar v. Allina Health Services, 587 U. S. 566, 574 (2019) (“This Court does not lightly assume that Congress silently attaches different meanings to the same term in the same or related statutes”). Thus, at least in this posture, the Government has not carried its burden to show that §12406(3) permits the President to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect fed- eral personnel and property in Illinois. We need not and do not address the reviewability of findings made by the Pres- ident under §12406(3) or any other statute. The application for stay is denied.
December 23, 2025 at 8:21 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Mary and Joe, Chicago style

By Mike Royko: chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2...
Mary and Joe, Chicago style
This is the story of Mary, Joe and their newborn in Chicago on Christmas, as written by the late Mike Royko in 1966.
chicago.suntimes.com
December 23, 2025 at 2:18 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
The @chicago.suntimes.com Cindy Hernandez on how she reported on immigration in Chicago, as a daughter of immigrants: chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/...
How I reported on immigration as a daughter of immigrants
Life experiences shape personal opinions that journalists set aside as they seek facts. But those experiences also help them connect with people with similar backgrounds.
chicago.suntimes.com
December 23, 2025 at 2:16 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Stories from the federal siege of Chicago

From @vimiller.bsky.social, Cindy Hernandez, Mary Norkol, Mohammad Samra and Kade Heather: chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/...
Stories from the federal siege of Chicago
As federal agents came every day to take away fellow Chicagoans, residents fought back with whistles and organizing while their neighborhoods were tear-gassed.
chicago.suntimes.com
December 23, 2025 at 2:14 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Department of Justice sues Pritzker, Raoul over law barring federal immigration actions at courthouses

Mary Norkol reports: chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/...
Department of Justice sues Pritzker, Raoul over law barring federal immigration actions at courthouses
The law bars immigration enforcement from taking place inside or within 1,000 feet of state courthouses. The federal government claims states can't dictate where federal agents make arrests.
chicago.suntimes.com
December 23, 2025 at 2:10 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
By my count, Cristal Caballero would be the 14th Operation Midway Blitz defendant to have criminal charges dropped, with 17 defendants remaining. No convictions so far.
jonseidel.bsky.social Jon Seidel @jonseidel.bsky.social · 16d
Federal prosecutors in Chicago are dropping another case tied to Operation Midway Blitz. This time it's USA v. Cristal Caballero, which had been set for a preliminary hearing Monday.

Motion below, followed by excerpts from the criminal complaint.
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through its attorney, ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully moves that this Honorable Court dismiss the complaint in the above- captioned case against the above-captioned defendant without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). FACTS SUPPORTING PROBABLE CAUSE 4. According to my review of body worn camera video and based on information provided by Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) with United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP): a. On or about October 4, 2025, at approximately 3:55 p.m., BPAs and other law enforcement officials with the Chicago Police Department (CPD) were assisting with crowd control and attempting to enforce a perimeter around S. Kedzie Avenue and West Pershing Road in Chicago, Illinois. The BPAs were wearing camouflage uniforms that indicated their status as law enforcement officials. The CPD officers were wearing uniforms with vests labeled with the word “Police” in large lettering. b. At approximately 3:55 p.m. as captured on body worn camera video, CABALLERO, wearing a white mask and sunglasses, had a verbal exchange with BPAs as another individual in the crowd pulled CABALLERO away from the BPAs. c. Certain individuals in the crowd breached the perimeter, and CABALLERO began running behind BPAs as the BPAs attempted to control the crowd. Two BPAs (Border Patrol Agent A and Border Patrol Agent B) approached CABALLERO, who continued to run. d. Border Patrol Agent A and Border Patrol Agent B attempted to detain CABALLERO. At approximately 3:56 p.m. on the body-worn camera video of Border Patrol Agent B, CABALLERO extended her arm to push Border Patrol Agent B and made physical contact with Border Patrol Agent B. At approximately 3:56 p.m. on the body-worn camera video of Border Patrol Agent A, CABALLERO resisted arrest by Border Patrol Agent A and physically struggled with Border Patrol Agent A. e. Border Patrol Agent A brought CABALLERO to the ground and attempted to place CABALLERO under arrest. CABALLERO began resisting Border Patrol Agent A’s attempts to place handcuffs on CABALLERO but ultimately submitted. CONCLUSION 5. Based on the above information, I submit that there is probable cause to believe that on or about October 4, 2025, CRISTAL CABALLERO did forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, and interfere with any person designated in section 111 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, and such acts involved physical contact with the victims. I therefore respectfully request that this Court issue a criminal complaint charging CABALLERO with a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1).
December 18, 2025 at 10:25 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Federal prosecutors in Chicago are dropping another case tied to Operation Midway Blitz. This time it's USA v. Cristal Caballero, which had been set for a preliminary hearing Monday.

Motion below, followed by excerpts from the criminal complaint.
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through its attorney, ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully moves that this Honorable Court dismiss the complaint in the above- captioned case against the above-captioned defendant without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). FACTS SUPPORTING PROBABLE CAUSE 4. According to my review of body worn camera video and based on information provided by Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) with United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP): a. On or about October 4, 2025, at approximately 3:55 p.m., BPAs and other law enforcement officials with the Chicago Police Department (CPD) were assisting with crowd control and attempting to enforce a perimeter around S. Kedzie Avenue and West Pershing Road in Chicago, Illinois. The BPAs were wearing camouflage uniforms that indicated their status as law enforcement officials. The CPD officers were wearing uniforms with vests labeled with the word “Police” in large lettering. b. At approximately 3:55 p.m. as captured on body worn camera video, CABALLERO, wearing a white mask and sunglasses, had a verbal exchange with BPAs as another individual in the crowd pulled CABALLERO away from the BPAs. c. Certain individuals in the crowd breached the perimeter, and CABALLERO began running behind BPAs as the BPAs attempted to control the crowd. Two BPAs (Border Patrol Agent A and Border Patrol Agent B) approached CABALLERO, who continued to run. d. Border Patrol Agent A and Border Patrol Agent B attempted to detain CABALLERO. At approximately 3:56 p.m. on the body-worn camera video of Border Patrol Agent B, CABALLERO extended her arm to push Border Patrol Agent B and made physical contact with Border Patrol Agent B. At approximately 3:56 p.m. on the body-worn camera video of Border Patrol Agent A, CABALLERO resisted arrest by Border Patrol Agent A and physically struggled with Border Patrol Agent A. e. Border Patrol Agent A brought CABALLERO to the ground and attempted to place CABALLERO under arrest. CABALLERO began resisting Border Patrol Agent A’s attempts to place handcuffs on CABALLERO but ultimately submitted. CONCLUSION 5. Based on the above information, I submit that there is probable cause to believe that on or about October 4, 2025, CRISTAL CABALLERO did forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, and interfere with any person designated in section 111 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, and such acts involved physical contact with the victims. I therefore respectfully request that this Court issue a criminal complaint charging CABALLERO with a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1).
December 18, 2025 at 10:12 PM
Reposted by Jon Seidel
heathercherone.bsky.social
Update:
jonseidel.bsky.social Jon Seidel @jonseidel.bsky.social · 16d
NEW: Lawrence Reed, the man accused of setting a woman on fire on the CTA Blue Line last month, is now also charged in a federal indictment with trying to set a fire at Chicago City Hall.

Background on the Nov. 14 attempted arson, via Mary Norkol: chicago.suntimes.com/news/2025/11...
COUNT ONE The SPECIAL SEPTEMBER 2025 GRAND JURY charges: On or about November 17, 2025, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, LAWRENCE REED, defendant herein, did knowingly and without lawful authority and permission, commit an act, which act included the use of a dangerous weapon, with the intent to cause death and serious bodily injury to one or more persons who were on or in a terminal, structure, track, and facility used in the operation of, and in support of the operation of, a mass transportation vehicle, which mass transportation vehicle was carrying passengers and employees at the time of the offense, to wit: using gasoline and a lighter, REED knowingly set fire to a passenger on a Chicago Transit Authority Blue Line Train car, which conduct was engaged in, on, against, and affected a mass transportation provider; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1992(a)(7), (b)(1), and (c)(1). COUNT TWO The SPECIAL SEPTEMBER 2025 GRAND JURY further charges: On or about November 14, 2025, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, LAWRENCE REED, defendant herein, maliciously damaged and attempted to damage and destroy, by means of fire, a building, namely Chicago City Hall, located at 121 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, used in interstate commerce and in activity affecting interstate commerce; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(i).
December 18, 2025 at 7:43 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
NEW: Lawrence Reed, the man accused of setting a woman on fire on the CTA Blue Line last month, is now also charged in a federal indictment with trying to set a fire at Chicago City Hall.

Background on the Nov. 14 attempted arson, via Mary Norkol: chicago.suntimes.com/news/2025/11...
COUNT ONE The SPECIAL SEPTEMBER 2025 GRAND JURY charges: On or about November 17, 2025, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, LAWRENCE REED, defendant herein, did knowingly and without lawful authority and permission, commit an act, which act included the use of a dangerous weapon, with the intent to cause death and serious bodily injury to one or more persons who were on or in a terminal, structure, track, and facility used in the operation of, and in support of the operation of, a mass transportation vehicle, which mass transportation vehicle was carrying passengers and employees at the time of the offense, to wit: using gasoline and a lighter, REED knowingly set fire to a passenger on a Chicago Transit Authority Blue Line Train car, which conduct was engaged in, on, against, and affected a mass transportation provider; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1992(a)(7), (b)(1), and (c)(1). COUNT TWO The SPECIAL SEPTEMBER 2025 GRAND JURY further charges: On or about November 14, 2025, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, LAWRENCE REED, defendant herein, maliciously damaged and attempted to damage and destroy, by means of fire, a building, namely Chicago City Hall, located at 121 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, used in interstate commerce and in activity affecting interstate commerce; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(i).
December 18, 2025 at 7:41 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
ICYMI: A federal jury Tuesday sided with two Chicago police officers in a 2020 shooting at a CTA Red Line station.

Story from @chicago.suntimes.com: chicago.suntimes.com/public-safet...
Federal jury sides with Chicago police officers in 2020 Red Line shooting, awards no damages
Lawyers for Ariel Roman sought $5.3 million from the jury over his February 2020 shooting by Officer Melvina Bogard, arguing that Roman never posed a threat to the officers that justified the use of d...
chicago.suntimes.com
December 17, 2025 at 2:02 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Federal jury sides with Chicago police officers in 2020 Red Line shooting, awards no damages

From @chicago.suntimes.com: chicago.suntimes.com/public-safet...
Federal jury sides with Chicago police officers in 2020 Red Line shooting, awards no damages
Lawyers for Ariel Roman sought $5.3 million from the jury over his February 2020 shooting by Officer Melvina Bogard, arguing that Roman never posed a threat to the officers that justified the use of d...
chicago.suntimes.com
December 17, 2025 at 2:05 AM
jonseidel.bsky.social
JUST IN: A federal jury has rejected claims brought by Ariel Roman in his 2020 shooting at the Grand Avenue CTA Red Line station by CPD Officer Melvina Bogard. Jurors found for Bogard and her partner, Bernard Butler, awarding no damages to Roman.

Background: chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/1...
Judge acquits Chicago cop in shooting of unarmed man at CTA Red Line station, saying victim not credible on stand
Officer Melvina Bogard argued she was trying to protect herself when she shot Ariel Roman on Feb. 28, 2020, but Roman’s attorney contended the officer’s claim “completely contradicts the clear video e...
chicago.suntimes.com
December 16, 2025 at 11:36 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Bovino’s back: Border Patrol chief leads agents in fresh round of raids throughout Chicago area

Anthony Vazquez and Cindy Hernandez report: chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/...
Bovino’s back: Border Patrol commander leads agents in fresh round of immigration raids in Chicago area
Gregory Bovino returned to Little Village Tuesday after playing a key role in the early phases of Operation Midway Blitz, the controversial immigration enforcement campaign that has stoked fear among ...
chicago.suntimes.com
December 16, 2025 at 6:16 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Four Corner Hustlers chief facing life in prison after jurors hand him second conviction in four years

From @chicago.suntimes.com: chicago.suntimes.com/public-safet...
Four Corner Hustlers chief facing life in prison after jurors hand him second conviction in four years
Labar Spann’s original 2021 conviction for racketeering was undone by revelations that a former prosecutor made an “unauthorized” promise to a key witness.
chicago.suntimes.com
December 15, 2025 at 11:16 PM