Summary: DEA and Lower Makefield police raided wrong home at gunpoint Family detained in pajamas for 45 minutes before release Lawsuit alleges Fourth Amendment violations and false imprisonment   A Lower Makefield, Pennsylvania, family says they were left traumatized two years ago after local and federal law enforcement executed a warrant operation at the wrong home. Robert McLaughlin alleges he and his family were asleep in their home in the 900 block of Morgan Drive on May 16, 2024 around 4:30 a.m. when authorities broke down their front door and removed them from the house at gunpoint. Nearly an hour later, though, officers learned that the suspect they were looking for lived at the house across the street from the McLaughlins. Now the family is suing over the wrong house raid. “The allegations in this complaint describe every family’s worst nightmare,” said attorney Brian Fritz, who is representing the family. Representatives for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and former Lower Makefield Police Chief Ken Coluzzi, who retired at the end of 2024, did not immediately respond to a request for comment May 14. Lower Makefield Township Manager David Kratzer declined to comment citing pending litigation. Robert McLaughlin alleges he was awakened by the sounds of banging downstairs that was so loud he didn’t bother to get dressed before going to investigate, according to the lawsuit filed May 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. As he neared the bottom of the steps, the banging grew louder and more aggressive, the lawsuit alleges. Before he could figure out what was happening, McLaughlin heard what sounded like a large blunt object hit the front door, which turned out to be a battering ram, the lawsuit alleges. “At that moment, Mr. McLaughlin was immediately overcome with fear and the realization that an intruder was attempting to break into his home,” according to the lawsuit. He allegedly immediately shouted toward the front door in an attempt to scare off the intruders. After repeated blows, the front door was splintered and Robert McLaughlin was immediately met with blinding, bright lights and assault rifles, the lawsuit said. He was forcefully pulled from his home by officers who identified themselves as DEA and Lower Makefield police. They handcuffed him and physically restrained him in his front yard. Officers then allegedly at gunpoint forced McLaughlin’s wife, Christine, the couple’s two children out of the home dressed in underwear and pajamas, and detained them as well. The chaos awakened neighbors who came outside to see McLaughlin and his family surrounded by heavily armed law enforcement officers, the lawsuit alleges. The family alleges they repeatedly identified themselves and the home address during the incident, but officers continued detaining them even after it was made apparent they were not the subject of the warrant operation, which sought a Hispanic man, Fritz said. The McLaughlins are not Hispanic. The family was released after 45 minutes only after a superior officer arrived and admitted that agents entered the wrong home, the lawsuit alleged. “At no point did defendants take reasonable steps to confirm that they were at the correct location,” Fritz said. “Instead (the McLaughlins), who were law-abiding residents asleep in their own home were subjected to a terrifying and dangerous encounter that should never have occured.” The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and includes claims involving unlawful search and seizure, unlawful detention, false imprisonment, assault, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and failures involving police training, supervision, and warrant execution procedures. Crime and Courts Reporter Jo Ciavaglia can be reached at [email protected] This article originally appeared on Bucks County Courier Times: DEA, police raided Bucks home at gunpoint. Wrong address, lawsuit says Reporting by Jo Ciavaglia, Bucks County Courier Times / Bucks County Courier Times

Summary: Trump executive orders barred four major law firms from federal contracts D.C. Circuit panel questioned presidential authority over security clearances Law firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey involved President Donald Trump’s administration faced a skeptical federal appeals court panel on May 14 in its bid to revive the Republican leader’s executive orders punishing four major U.S. law firms, testing the scope of presidential power after judges in Washington resoundingly rejected the measures as unlawful. A law firm's commercial associations, including the lawyers it hires, are not protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, Justice Department lawyer Abhishek Kambli told a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Former Republican-appointed U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, who is arguing for the law firms, countered that Trump's executive orders "strike at the heart of the First Amendment and the ability of lawyers to zealously represent their clients." COURT FOUND ORDERS VIOLATED FREE SPEECH The targeted law firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey — each won sweeping victories in the lower federal court, where four Democratic- and Republican-appointed judges last year separately found Trump's executive orders violated free speech and other provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Trump’s orders cited the law firms' legal work, hiring, diversity policies and political ties. The orders were part of a broader campaign led by the president since the start of his second term, targeting his perceived enemies. The executive orders sought to bar the four firms’ lawyers from accessing federal buildings and to terminate U.S. government contracts held by their clients. The orders also stripped employees of the firms of their government security clearances. The panel hearing Thursday's arguments included two Democratic-appointed judges and one Republican-appointed judge, each of whom questioned Kambli on the breadth of authority asserted by the administration. Judge Sri Srinivasan, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama, pressed the Justice Department's attorney on whether Trump can revoke security clearances for reasons unrelated to their trustworthiness or ability to keep secrets. Kambli said the courts have no authority to review such decisions if the president invokes national security. "Even if it is for improper motives, it is ultimately unreviewable," Kambli said. Clement argued that prior rulings did not fully insulate the president from challenges to security clearance decisions. "You’re opening the door for a president to say that, 'I just don't think Democrats are trustworthy' or 'law firms that represent Democrats are trustworthy,' and I don't think you want to open that door," Clement said. TEST OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER In a court filing, the Justice Department told the D.C. Circuit that the cases are "not about the sanctity of the American law firm" but rather "about lower courts encroaching on ​the constitutional power of the president" in ​the realm of national security and other ⁠matters. The targeted firms received backing from a host of legal organizations, including the American Bar Association, in urging the D.C. Circuit to reject the administration's appeals. "They were singled out because they represented clients or associated with attorneys who raised the president's ire," Clement told the appeals court. "While most cases alleging retaliation depend on either speculation or extensive discovery, here the executive orders lay the president's motives bare." Nine other firms, including Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps, settled with the Trump administration to avoid similar orders against them. The appeals court panel also heard the Trump administration’s appeal of a ruling that barred it from stripping prominent Washington lawyer Mark Zaid of his government security clearance. The D.C. Circuit's eventual rulings in both cases can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by David Bario, David Gregorio, Rod Nickel)

Summary: South Carolina Republican Party announces lawsuit plans SCGOP Chair Drew McKissick supports party membership control Attorney General Alan Wilson backs the GOP lawsuit The South Carolina Republican Party is planning to file a federal lawsuit to change the state's primary voting process and require voters to register to a political party. South Carolina voters do not have to register by political party, and are able to vote in either political party's primary. State Republican lawmakers have pushed for legislation to close the state's primary elections, but they have been unsuccessful in passing it. South Carolina Republican Party leadership held a press conference at the statehouse in Columbia on May 12 to announce the new lawsuit related to closed primaries and required partisan voter registration. SCGOP Chair Drew McKissick said that South Carolina political parties have the right under state law to define the terms of party membership and dictate who votes in their primaries. He said the law doesn't offer the tool to enforce that policy. "Many people who are not Republicans choose Republican nominees," McKissick said. "That's like allowing Carolina or Clemson fans to choose which players the other team puts on the field." U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, R-District 5, is campaigning on closed primaries in his run for South Carolina governor. He said now is the time to institute closed primaries in South Carolina. "I'm glad to see the party moving forward with it, and I look forward to having our day in court," Norman said. Last fall, the Republican Party of Texas filed a federal lawsuit against the state to close its primaries. The Texas Republican Party argued that the First Amendment gives political parties the right to determine who votes in their election. Attorney General Alan Wilson offered his support to the South Carolina Republican Party as it takes up the lawsuit. The South Carolina Republican Party has not yet filed the suit, but McKissick said he expects the lawsuit to be filed shortly after the June 9 primary elections. Reporting by Bella Carpentier, Greenville News USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect