• Illinois House Bill 3458 could decriminalize attacks on police officers if the aggressor was experiencing a mental health episode. It would need to be based on a documented history of mental illness.
• Critics, including police officers, argue that the bill may encourage individuals to feign mental illness to justify violence against law enforcement.
• The bill, which excludes attacks on firefighters and other first responders, is currently under review by the Illinois General Assembly Rules Committee.

Full Story

A new bill in Illinois could decriminalize attacks on police officers if the aggressor was experiencing a mental health episode. Democratic state Rep. Lisa Davis introduced House Bill 3458, amending the criminal code of 2012, which would allow individuals with a documented history of mental illness to avoid legal action over attacking a police officer if it is determined that they were experiencing a mental health episode at the time.

Critics including some police officers argue that this could lead to mental illness being used as an excuse to justify violence against law enforcement.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

“I could see how it may incentivize people to feign mental illness if they’re facing charges of aggravated battery to a police officer, whether they’re mentally ill or not,” Taylorville, Illinois police officer Matthew Nichols told WCIA.

Where does the current law stand?

Currently, Illinois law criminalizes attacks on police officers and other first responders, including firefighters. 

However, this bill specifically excludes attacks on firefighters and other first responders from decriminalization.

What’s next?

The bill has been referred to the Illinois General Assembly Rules Committee.

A similar proposal was introduced in Virginia in 2023 but failed to pass.

• A federal judge ordered federal agencies to rehire tens of thousands of probationary employees terminated as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce. U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued the preliminary injunction on Thursday that directs the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior and Treasury to rehire fired employees.
• Alsup said that he may extend the order to cover other federal agencies at a later date.
• The judge was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, and justified his ruling by saying that he believes the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) illegally directed agencies to fire probationary employees, while OPM argues it only provided “guidance” to the agencies, which led to the layoffs.

Full Story

A federal judge has ordered federal agencies to rehire tens of thousands of probationary employees who were terminated as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce.

Which agencies does the order apply to?

U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued the preliminary injunction on Thursday, March 13, which directs the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior and Treasury to rehire fired employees.

The judge also said that he may extend the order to cover other federal agencies at a later date.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

What did the case pertain to?

Alsup, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, justified his ruling, saying that he believes the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) illegally directed agencies to fire probationary employees, while the OPM argues it only provided “guidance” to the agencies, which led to the layoffs.

What did the judge’s ruling state?

Alsup said in his ruling on Thursday, “The court finds that the Office of Personnel Management did direct all agencies to terminate probationary employees with the exception of mission-critical employees.”

Alsup said the order is effective immediately.

What did the judge say before the ruling?

The ruling came after Alsup criticized the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for failing to make acting head of the Office of Management and Budget Charles Ezell available to testify.

The DOJ refused to make Ezell available and instead withdrew a declaration from him submitted last month, which served as the government’s only evidence in the case.

Ezell previously said that his agency did not “direct” other departments to fire probationary workers, which is the main issue in the case brought by labor unions and others.

Alsup told DOJ Attorney Kelsey Helland on Thursday that she is “afraid” to make Ezell available, “because you know cross-examination will reveal the truth. I tend to doubt you’re telling me the truth.”

The judge added, “You’re not helping me get to the truth. You’re giving me press releases — sham documents.”

Get up to speed on the stories leading the day every weekday morning. Sign up for the newsletter today!

Learn more about our emails. Unsubscribe anytime.

Enter your email for newsletter updates Subscribe

By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.

What happens next?

Politico reports that Alsup’s ruling is likely to be appealed.

The Trump administration had yet to respond to the ruling at the time of the publishing of this report.