Lennon Tyler and her German fiancé often took road trips to Mexico when he vacationed in the United States since it was only a day’s drive from her home in Las Vegas, one of the perks of their long-distance relationship.

But things went terribly wrong when they drove back from Tijuana last month.

U.S. border agents handcuffed Tyler, a U.S. citizen, and chained her to a bench, while her fiancé, Lucas Sielaff, was accused of violating the rules of his 90-day U.S. tourist permit, the couple said. Authorities later handcuffed and shackled Sielaff and sent him to a crowded U.S. immigration detention center. He spent 16 days locked up before being allowed to fly home to Germany.

Since President Donald Trump took office, there have been other high-profile incidents of tourists like Sielaff being stopped at U.S. border crossings and held for weeks at U.S. immigration detention facilities before being allowed to fly home at their own expense.

They include another German tourist who was stopped at the Tijuana crossing on Jan. 25. Jessica Brösche spent over six weeks locked up, including over a week in solitary confinement, a friend said.

On the Canadian border, a backpacker from Wales spent nearly three weeks at a detention center before flying home this week. And a Canadian woman on a work visa detained at the Tijuana border spent 12 days in detention before returning home last weekend.

Sielaff, 25, and the others say it was never made clear why they were taken into custody even after they offered to go home voluntarily.

Pedro Rios, director of the American Friends Service Committee, a nonprofit that aids migrants, said in the 22 years he has worked on the border he has never seen travelers from Western Europe and Canada, longtime U.S. allies, locked up like this.

“It’s definitely unusual with these cases so close together, and the rationale for detaining these people doesn’t make sense,” he said. “It doesn’t justify the abhorrent treatment and conditions” they endured.

“The only reason I see is there is a much more fervent anti-immigrant atmosphere,” Rios said.

U.S. authorities did not respond to a request from The Associated Press for figures on how many tourists have been held at detention facilities or explain why they weren’t simply denied entry.

The incidents are fueling anxiety as the Trump administration prepares for a ban on travelers from some countries. Noting the “evolving” federal travel policies, the University of California, Los Angeles sent a notice this week urging its foreign-born students and staff to consider the risks of non-essential travel for spring break, warning “re-entry requirements may change while you are away, impacting your return.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in an email to the AP that Sielaff and Brösche, who was held for 45 days, “were deemed inadmissible” by Customs and Border Protection. That agency said it cannot discuss specifics but “if statutes or visa terms are violated, travelers may be subject to detention and removal.” The agencies did not comment on the other cases.

Both German tourists were allowed into the United States under a waiver program offered to a select group of countries, mostly in Europe and Asia, whose citizens are allowed to travel to the U.S. for business or leisure for up to 90 days without getting a visa in advance. Applicants register online with the Electronic System for Travel Authorization.

But even if they are authorized to travel under that system, they can still be barred from entering the country.

Sielaff arrived in the U.S. on Jan. 27. He and Tyler decided to go to Tijuana for four days in mid-February because Tyler’s dog needed surgery and veterinary services are cheaper there. They figured they would enjoy some tacos and make a fun trip out of it.

Italy’s highest appeals court has ordered the government to compensate a group of migrants who were stranded at sea for days on a coast guard vessel in 2018 due to then-Interior minister Matteo Salvini ’s tough anti-migration policies.

Premier Giorgia Meloni on Friday criticized the court decision as “questionable” and “frustrating.”

The Cassation court ruling, which overturns a previous one, ordered the Italian government to pay for damages inflicted to the migrants at the time of the standoff. Judges late on Thursday sent the case back to an ordinary court, asking it to define the exact amount of compensation to be granted.

A group of Eritrean migrants appealed to the Cassation court over the ordeal of 190 migrants by Italy’s Diciotti coast guard ship in August 2018. Thirteen migrants with health problems were first disembarked on the island of Lampedusa, off Italy’s southern coast. The ship then headed to Catania, in Sicily, but was blocked for about 10 days by Salvini’s orders before the remaining 177 migrants were allowed off.

Meloni, who leads a conservative coalition including hardline League leader and vice-premier Salvini, said the ruling won’t help “citizens getting closer to institutions.”

“Due to this decision, the government will need to pay compensation — using money from honest Italian citizens who pay taxes – to people who tried to enter Italy illegally, violating the Italian law,” she wrote in a social media post.

Salvini called the ruling “absurd” in his own post and urged the magistrates to use their own money if they really want to compensate their “beloved migrants.” He has always said that his job was to defend Italy’s borders.

It was the latest chapter of a months-long clash between the Italian magistrates and the Meloni government, which is trying to push forward a radical reform of the judiciary system. Many critics say it puts the judiciary’s independence at risk.

Italian courts have also been challenging Meloni’s flagship initiative to transfer migrants to costly reception centers built in Albania for fast-track processing.

A Michigan woman is asking a judge to declare her three missing sons dead, nearly 15 years after their father didn’t return them after Thanksgiving. The disappearance has tormented a small town near Ohio and remains unsolved.

Authorities believe the brothers are deceased and they clearly suspect John Skelton is responsible, though he has not been charged with killing his sons. By November, he is expected to complete a 15-year prison sentence for his failure to give the boys back to Tanya Zuvers, the sole conviction in the saga.

A Lenawee County judge will begin hearing testimony Monday at an unusual hearing. The witness list includes Zuvers, as well as police investigators who will publicly discuss the yearslong effort to find any trace of Andrew, Alexander and Tanner Skelton.

Since November 2010, Zuvers has prayed someone “would cure her broken heart” with news about their whereabouts or that John Skelton would explain what really happened, attorney R. Burke Castleberry said in a court filing.

“Heartbreakingly, none of that has occurred,” he wrote.

Nathan Piwowarski, a lawyer in Cadillac, Michigan, who specializes in probate and estate law, said there can be many reasons to have someone declared dead, including “personal closure for the family.”

A court declaration also could “give someone authority to pursue a wrongful death claim or other civil claim,” said Piwowarski, who is not involved in the case.

Castleberry declined to comment ahead of the hearing. Skelton, 53, did not respond to an email sent to him in prison about the petition filed by Zuvers.

The brothers, ages 9, 7 and 5, lived in Morenci, a small community next to the Ohio border, 100 miles (161 kilometers) southwest of Detroit. Zuvers was seeking a divorce from Skelton in fall 2010 and the boys were with him, a few doors away, on Thanksgiving.

They were supposed to return to Zuvers the next morning. Instead, they were gone. Police later determined Skelton’s phone was in Ohio at 4:30 a.m. before it was turned off and then turned back on at 6 a.m. in Morenci.

Skelton denied harming his sons and said they were with an underground group for their safety, among other murky explanations, according to investigators.

People spent weeks searching woods and waters in Michigan and Ohio. While in prison, Skelton told authorities that a man who helps people leave Amish communities might know about the boys, but Castleberry said it was “another lie.”

Investigators at the court hearing “will detail the farfetched, unfathomable yarns John Skelton spun, leading authorities on one wild goose chase after another,” Castleberry said.

President Donald Trump signed on Saturday an executive order designating English as the official language of the United States.

The order allows government agencies and organizations that receive federal funding to choose whether to continue to offer documents and services in language other than English.

It rescinds a mandate from former President Bill Clinton that required the government and organizations that received federal funding to provide language assistance to non-English speakers.

“Establishing English as the official language will not only streamline communication but also reinforce shared national values, and create a more cohesive and efficient society,” according to the order.

“In welcoming new Americans, a policy of encouraging the learning and adoption of our national language will make the United States a shared home and empower new citizens to achieve the American dream,” the order also states. “Speaking English not only opens doors economically, but it helps newcomers engage in their communities, participate in national traditions, and give back to our society.”

More than 30 states have already passed laws designating English as their official language, according to U.S. English, a group that advocates for making English the official language in the United States.

For decades, lawmakers in Congress have introduced legislation to designate English as the official language of the U.S., but those efforts have not succeeded.

Within hours of Trump’s inauguration last month, the new administration took down the Spanish language version of the official White House website.

Hispanic advocacy groups and others expressed confusion and frustration at the change. The White House said at the time it was committed to bringing the Spanish language version of the website back online. As of Saturday, it was still not restored.

The White House did not immediately respond to a message about whether that would happen.

Trump shut down the Spanish version of the website during his first term. It was restored when President Joe Biden was inaugurated in 2021.

In a federal courtroom Monday afternoon, a significant legal battle unfolded as The Associated Press (AP) pressed its case against three staff members of President Donald Trump's administration. The news agency is seeking to reverse the Trump administration’s decision to bar AP journalists from attending presidential events, including access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other areas traditionally part of the White House press pool.

The crux of the dispute lies in the AP's refusal to adopt President Trump's renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America." The AP insists on using the traditional "Gulf of Mexico" terminology, explaining that its audience is global and that the body of water extends beyond U.S. territory. Nonetheless, the news agency has acknowledged Trump's renaming, emphasizing its stance as a matter of journalistic integrity and global relevance.

At the heart of the AP’s argument is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which safeguards freedom of speech. The White House, on the other hand, contends that access to the president is a privilege, not a right. Trump himself told reporters just last week, "We're going to keep them out until such time as they agree that it's the Gulf of America."

AP’s legal team claims that the ban, which appears to have originated directly from President Trump, is an infringement on their First Amendment rights. Gabe Rottman, a senior attorney for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, who submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the AP, described the situation as "viewpoint discrimination." He further emphasized that this type of discrimination is particularly prohibited under the First Amendment, calling it “poison to a free society."

Judge McFadden, who presided over the hearing, expressed significant concern, raising several questions that pointed to the fact that the ban could indeed be seen as an infringement on freedom of speech, making the case a landmark one for press freedom.

The Senate was set to vote Thursday on whether to confirm Kash Patel as FBI director, a decision that could place him atop the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency despite concerns from Democrats over his qualifications and the prospect that he would do President Donald Trump’s bidding.

Patel cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee last week by a 12-10, party-line vote and is set for consideration by the Republican-controlled Senate on Thursday afternoon.

He is expected to be confirmed unless more than three Republican senators defy Trump’s will and vote against him, which is seen as unlikely. Trump has already secured approval for most of his nominees despite initial Republican skepticism to several of his choices.

Patel, a Trump loyalist who has fiercely criticized the agency that he is poised to lead, would inherit an FBI gripped by turmoil. The Justice Department in the last month has forced out a group of senior FBI officials and made a highly unusual demand for the names of thousands of agents who particip

Trump has said that he expects some of those agents will be fired.

Republicans angry over what they see as law enforcement bias against conservatives during the Biden administration, as well as criminal investigations into Trump, have rallied behind Patel as the right person for the job. Democrats, meanwhile, have complained about his lack of management experience compared to others who have held the director’s job and highlighted incendiary past statements that they say call his judgment into question.

“My prediction is if you vote for Kash Patel, more than any other confirmation vote you make, you will come to regret this one to your grave,” Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said this week.

Patel’s eyebrow-raising remarks on hundreds of podcasts over the last four years include referring to law enforcement officials who investigated Trump as “criminal gangsters,” referring to some Jan. 6 rioters as “political prisoners” and pledging to “come after” anti-Trump “conspirators” in the government and media.

At his confirmation hearing last month, Patel said Democrats were taking some of his comments out of context or misunderstanding the broader point that he was trying to make, such as when he proposed shutting down the FBI headquarters in Washington and turning it into a museum for the so-called deep state. And Patel denied the idea that a list in his book of government officials who he said were part of a “deep state” amounted to an “enemies list,” calling that a “total mischaracterization.”

FBI directors are given 10-year terms as a way to insulate them from political influence and keep them from becoming beholden to a particular president or administration. Patel was selected in November to replace Christopher Wray, who was picked by Trump in 2017 and served for more than seven years but who repeatedly angered the president and was seen by him as insufficiently loyal. He resigned before Trump took office.

A former federal defender and Justice Department counterterrorism prosecutor, Patel attracted Trump’s attention during his first term when, as a staffer on the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee, he helped author a memo with pointed criticism of the FBI’s investigation into ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign.

by breakinglegalnews.com

In a bold move, top officials within the Trump administration are openly challenging the judiciary’s role in overseeing executive power. In the last 24 hours, prominent figures like Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance have not only criticized a judge’s recent decision to block Musk’s team from accessing Treasury records, but have also questioned the legitimacy of judicial checks and balances.

Vance took to social media, comparing judicial interference with executive power to a hypothetical situation where a judge would dictate military or prosecutorial decisions. Musk, meanwhile, echoed Vance’s sentiments, calling for the impeachment of the judge involved and even shared a controversial post suggesting the administration might defy the court order altogether.

The case centers around Musk’s efforts to uncover government waste through the Department of Government Efficiency. However, the court temporarily halted his team’s access to sensitive Treasury Department data, citing potential legal violations. The ruling is a setback to the administration’s broader goal of dismantling government agencies and reducing the federal workforce.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller added fuel to the fire, calling the ruling an “assault on democracy” while decrying the influence of unelected bureaucrats within the government.

This legal pushback comes amid growing resistance to Trump’s sweeping agenda, including efforts to stop mass buyouts and federal leave mandates. With a February 14 hearing looming, the administration faces a tough road ahead as it battles to implement its ambitious reforms.

In the meantime, critics, including Democratic attorneys general, warn that Musk’s access to sensitive financial systems could undermine public trust and legal boundaries. The dispute is far from over, and the future of the administration’s plans rests on the outcome of this heated legal fight.

A state appeals court on Thursday removed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the Georgia election interference case against Donald Trump and others, the latest legal victory for the president-elect in criminal cases that once threatened his career and freedom.

The case against Trump and more than a dozen others had already been stalled for months over an appeal related to a romantic relationship Willis had with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she had hired to lead the case.

Citing an “appearance of impropriety” that might not typically warrant such a removal, a Georgia Court of Appeals panel said in a 2-1 ruling that “this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.” Willis’ office immediately filed a notice of intent to ask the Georgia Supreme Court to review the decision.

But pursuing a criminal case against a sitting president is a virtual impossibility. And Trump will return to the White House having overcome efforts to prosecute him and empowered by a Supreme Court ruling granting him presumptive immunity for any “official acts” he takes in office.

The development comes weeks after Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith abandoned two federal prosecutions against the incoming president, and as sentencing in a separate hush money case in New York is indefinitely on hold as a result of Trump’s victory in November over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.

A grand jury in Atlanta indicted Trump and 18 others in August 2023, using the state’s anti-racketeering law to accuse them of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally try to overturn Trump’s narrow 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden in Georgia. The alleged scheme included Trump’s call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger urging him to help find enough votes to beat Biden. Four people have pleaded guilty.

Trump told Fox News Digital that the case “should not be allowed to go any further.” The president-elect added: “Everybody should receive an apology, including those wonderful patriots who have been caught up in this for years.”

Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, said the ruling was “well-reasoned and just.” He said the appeals court “highlighted that Willis’ misconduct created an ‘odor of mendacity’ and an appearance of impropriety that could only be cured by the disqualification of her and her entire office.”

“This decision puts an end to a politically motivated persecution of the next President of the United States,” Sadow wrote in an emailed statement.

Representatives for Willis did not immediately respond to a text message seeking comment on the ruling.

Who gets to keep an engagement ring if a romance turns sour and the wedding is called off?

That’s what the highest court in Massachusetts was asked to decide with a $70,000 ring at the center of the dispute.

The court ultimately ruled Friday that an engagement ring must be returned to the person who purchased it, ending a six-decade state rule that required judges to try to identify who was to blame for the end of the relationship.

The case involved Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who started dating in the summer of 2016, according to court filings. Over the next year, they traveled together, visiting New York, Bar Harbor, Maine, the Virgin Islands and Italy. Johnson paid for the vacations and also gave Settino jewelry, clothing, shoes and handbags.

Eventually, Johnson bought a $70,000 diamond engagement ring and in August 2017 asked Settino’s father for permission to marry her. Two months later, he also bought two wedding bands for about $3,700.

Johnson said he felt like after that Settino became increasingly critical and unsupportive, including berating him and not accompanying him to treatments when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to court filings.

At some point Johnson looked at Settino’s cell phone and discovered a message from her to a man he didn’t know.

“My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime,” the message read. He also found messages from the man, including a voicemail in which the man referred to Settino as “cupcake” and said they didn’t see enough of each other. Settino has said the man was just a friend.

Johnson ended the engagement. But ownership of the ring remained up in the air.

A trial judge initially concluded Settino was entitled to keep the engagement ring, reasoning that Johnson “mistakenly thought Settino was cheating on him and called off the engagement.” An appeals court found Johnson should get the ring.

In September, the case landed before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ultimately ruled that Johnson should keep the ring.

In their ruling the justices said the case raised the question of whether the issue of “who is at fault” should continue to govern the rights to engagement rings when the wedding doesn’t happen.

More than six decades ago, the court found that an engagement ring is generally understood to be a conditional gift and determined that the person who gives it can get it back after a failed engagement, but only if that person was “without fault.”

“We now join the modern trend adopted by the majority of jurisdictions that have considered the issue and retire the concept of fault in this context,” the justices wrote in Friday’s ruling. “Where, as here, the planned wedding does not ensue and the engagement is ended, the engagement ring must be returned to the donor regardless of fault.”

Johnson’s lawyer, Stephanie Taverna Siden, welcomed the ruling.

“We are very pleased with the court’s decision today. It is a well-reasoned, fair and just decision and moves Massachusetts law in the right direction,” Siden said. A lawyer for Settino said they were disappointed, but respected the court’s decision to follow the majority rule among the states.

“We firmly believe that the notion of an engagement ring as a conditional gift is predicated on outdated notions and should no longer be a legal loophole in our otherwise well-established rule that a breach of a promise to marry is not an injury recognized by law,” Nicholas Rosenberg said.

Harvard Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet, who studies engagement ring law, said she wasn’t surprised that the court rejected the fault standard, saying it really doesn’t fit with modern family law.

“I’m a bit disappointed that they didn’t give more consideration to the other no-fault option. That would be that the gift stays with the person who received it, as is standard for most gifts,” she said. “The court calls an engagement ring a conditional gift, but the rule for engagement rings is not the same as the rule for every other kind of conditional gift.”

Native Americans living on a remote Montana reservation filed a lawsuit against state and county officials Monday saying they don’t have enough places to vote in person — the latest chapter in a decades-long struggle by tribes in the United States over equal voting opportunities.

The six members of the Fort Peck Reservation want satellite voting offices in their communities for late registration and to vote before Election Day without making long drives to a county courthouse.

The legal challenge, filed in state court, comes five weeks before the presidential election in a state with a a pivotal U.S. Senate race where the Republican candidate has made derogatory comments about Native Americans.

Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship a century ago. Advocates say the right still doesn’t always bring equal access to the ballot.

Many tribal members in rural western states live in far-flung communities with limited resources and transportation. That can make it hard to reach election offices, which in some cases are located off-reservation.

The plaintiffs in the Montana lawsuit reside in two small communities near the Canada border on the Fort Peck Reservation, home to the Assiniboine and Sioux tribes. Plaintiffs’ attorney Cher Old Elk grew up in one of those communities, Frazer, Montana, where more than a third of people live below the poverty line and the per capita income is about $12,000, according to census data.

It’s a 60-mile round trip from Frazer to the election office at the courthouse in Glasgow. Old Elk says that can force prospective voters into difficult choices.

“It’s not just the gas money; it’s actually having a vehicle that runs,” she said. “Is it food on my table, or is it the gas money to find a vehicle, to find a ride, to go to Glasgow to vote?”

The lawsuit asks a state judge for an order forcing Valley and Roosevelt counties and Republican Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen to create satellite election offices in Frazer and Poplar, Montana. The offices would be open during the same hours and on the same days as the county courthouses.

The plaintiffs requested satellite election offices from the counties earlier this year, the lawsuit says. Roosevelt County officials allegedly refused, while Valley County officials said budget constraints limited them to opening a satellite voting center for just one day.

Valley County Attorney Dylan Jensen said there were only two full-time employees in the Clerk and Recorder’s Office that oversees elections, so staffing a satellite office would be problematic.

“To do that for an extended period of time and still keep regular business going, it would be difficult,” he said.

A spokesperson said Jacobsen’s office had encouraged tribes and counties to work together to establish satellite offices as needed by Jan. 31, under a 2015 state elections directive.

Two journalists who led a now-closed Hong Kong online news outlet will hear a verdict in their sedition case on Thursday, in a trial that’s seen as an indicator of press freedom in the semi-autonomous Chinese city.

The trial of Stand News ' former editor-in-chief Chung Pui-kuen and former acting editor-in-chief Patrick Lam began almost two years ago. It’s Hong Kong’s first sedition case involving media since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997.

The journalists were charged with conspiracy to publish seditious materials under a colonial-era law that’s been increasingly used to target dissent as part of a crackdown that followed huge anti-government protests in 2019.

Here is what you need to know:

What was Stand News?

Stand News was one of the last remaining openly critical media outlets in Hong Kong following the closing of the Apple Daily newspaper in June 2021.

It was founded as a nonprofit by businessman Tony Tsoi and media veterans Yee Ka-fai and Chung in December 2014, promising to uphold independent editorial standards and writing in a founding message that the responsibility of media is to keep power in check.

During the 2019 anti-government protests, Stand News gained prominence for its live-streaming coverage from the front lines and attracted many democracy supporters for its critical reporting of the authorities.

The city’s secretary for security Chris Tang and its police criticized the outlet, saying some of its reports were “misleading,” while Hong Kong residents surveyed by the researchers at the Chinese University of Hong Kong rated it among the most credible outlets in the city in 2019.
How did the journalists wind up on trial?

In 2021, Hong Kong witnessed the shutdown of dozens of civil society groups under the shadow of a Beijing-imposed national security law, with many prominent activists arrested. In June that year, authorities arrested members of Apple Daily’s top management and froze its assets. The newspaper’s founder Jimmy Lai is now fighting collusion charges and faces up to life in prison if convicted.

On Dec. 29, 2021, police raided the Stand News office. The same day, they arrested Chung and Lam along with four former board members and Chung’s wife Chan Pui-Man, a former Apple Daily editor. Assets worth about 61 million Hong Kong dollars ($7.8 million) were frozen, forcing Stand News to close.

Of the seven people arrested, only Chung and Lam were later charged in connection to Stand News. Chan was charged in the Apple Daily case and later pleaded guilty.
What’s the bigger picture for civil liberties in Hong Kong?

Days after Stand News shut down, independent news outlet Citizen News announced it would cease operations, citing the deteriorating media environment and the potential risks to its staff.

The closing of Apple Daily, Stand News and Citizen News within months dealt a blow to the city’s once vibrant press scene.

The shutdowns were widely seen as casualties during the political crackdown on civil society. Many activists were prosecuted, silenced or forced into self-exile after the 2020 security law took effect. The Hong Kong government in March enacted a new, homegrown security law that critics fear will further curtail civil liberties.

The delivery of the verdict for the Stand News editors has been delayed several times, including once while awaiting the appeal outcome of another landmark sedition case.

Eric Lai, a research fellow at Georgetown Center for Asian Law, said the case is significant because it was the first sedition case the Hong Kong government brought against news editors and a media outlet since the 1997 handover. Lai said the British colonial government had stopped using the sedition law in its final decades.

The Hong Kong government insists the city still enjoys civil liberties, as guaranteed by its mini-constitution, and the exercise of them may be subject to restrictions that are provided by law.

George Santos, the former New York congressman who spun lies into a brief political career, pleaded guilty Monday to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, acknowledging that he allowed his ambitions to cloud his judgment.

Santos, 36, is likely to spend at least six years in prison and owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution. His federal fraud case, which led to his expulsion from Congress, was just weeks away from going to trial.

“I betrayed the trust of my constituents and supporters. I deeply regret my conduct,” the New York Republican said, his voice trembling as he entered the plea in a Long Island courtroom.

Santos, 36, said he accepted responsibility for his crimes and intends to make amends. He faces more than six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines and owes at least $370,000 in restitution.

Senior Federal Judge Joanna Seybert scheduled sentencing for Feb. 7.

Santos was indicted on felony charges that he stole from political donors, used campaign contributions to pay for personal expenses, lied to Congress about his wealth and collected unemployment benefits while actually working.

Santos was expelled from the U.S. House after an ethics investigation found “overwhelming evidence” that he had broken the law and exploited his public position for his own profit.

The case has been set to go to trial in early September. If that had happened, federal prosecutors said Monday that they were prepared to call some 40 witnesses, including members of Santos’ campaign, employers and family members.

Santos was once touted as a rising political star after he flipped the suburban district that covers the affluent North Shore of Long Island and a slice of the New York City borough of Queens in 2022.

But his life story began unraveling even before he was sworn into office. At the time, reports emerged that he had lied about having a career at top Wall Street firms and a college degree along with other questions swirling about his biography.

New questions then emerged about his campaign funds.

He was first indicted on federal charges in May 2023, but refused to resign from office.

Santos had previously maintained his innocence, though he said in an interview in December that a plea deal with prosecutors was “not off the table.”

Asked if he was afraid of going to prison, he told CBS 2 at the time: “I think everybody should be afraid of going to jail, it’s not a pretty place and uh, I definitely want to work very hard to avoid that as best as possible.”

Separately Monday, in Manhattan federal court, Judge Denise Cote tossed out a lawsuit in which Santos claimed that late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, ABC and Disney committed copyright infringement and unjustly enriched themselves at his expense by using videos he made on the Cameo app for a “Jimmy Kimmel Live” segment. The judge said it was clear that Kimmel used the clips, which were also posted to YouTube, for the purposes of criticism and commentary, which is fair use.

Santos had begun selling personalized videos on Cameo in December shortly after his ouster from Congress. He subsequently launched, then quickly abandoned, a longshot bid to return to Congress as an independent earlier this year.