April 2026 Legal Affairs by Cleveland Jewish Publication Company

LEGAL AFFAIRS

What to do when your identity is stolen

NOELL WOLFGRAM EVANS

In many ways, our workdays have been made easier thanks to the innovations and advancements of technology. Unfortunately, scammers and those working in illegal trades involving personal information are also bene ting from those advances.

“AI (arti cial intelligence) is helping everyone, including cyber criminals,” Max Julian, a partner at Gertsburg Licata in Independence, said. “LLMs (large language models) won’t agree to help you commit criminal acts directly, but if you know the right prompts and take the time you can eventually get it to do what you want.” is means that the general public already on high alert for links they receive

in email, text messages that decry a lack of payment for a nonexistent service and “stranded relative” phone calls, now have a new front to ght in the battle for the protection of their personal information.

Julian said that once you are hacked, they generally already have your information.

“I would never discourage anyone from ling a police report in these situations, but the unfortunate reality is that they hardly ever catch these actors,” he said.

In addition to working with local law enforcement o cials, he suggested ling a report with the Internet Crime Complaint Center run by the FBI.

While it’s important to establish a legal record of the incident, it’s equally important to take steps to ensure that your identity can’t be compromised in the future.

“It’s important that when something happens, you foster a blame-free environment,” Julian said. “It doesn’t matter who clicked a link, you have to work together to x it.”

Perhaps the most important thing that

you can do is working up front to ensure that clicking the suspicious link (or taking some other action) never happens, he suggested.

“ e most important thing you can do is not panic,” Julian said. “But that can be really hard to do in those situations.”

He said that a popular scheme right now is a scammer using “scareware” as a tactic to get ahold of what they want.

“ ey will say that they have your information or they have video of you and if you don’t do what they want, they will release it to your contact list,” Julian said.

He explained that often what they have done is scanned your social pro les and, from those, pulled enough background information to make their threat seem credible. In those situations, seeking legal guidance can help you avoid making rash decisions that could cause you greater concerns.

e summer travel season may be a chance for you to unwind, but Julian counters that scammers see in it new pools of potential victims.

“When you are at the airport, don’t use those USB charging stations they have in the waiting areas,” Julian said. “In fact, you should never just plug your phone into a USB station that you are not familiar with. Always use a wall charger.”

Many people work diligently to keep their personal identi cation secure. Unfortunately, it could become compromised if information is stolen from a company.

When a data theft occurs at a business, Julian said “A law rm can be helpful in the aftermath of a data breach.”

He said that lawyers can help you take the right steps to avoid further complications as long as you act quickly.

“It’s important to remember that threat actors work on the bleeding edge,” Julian said. “So, being proactive and regularly performing reviews and audits can lessen your risks.”

Noell Wolfgram Evans is a freelance journalist.

We, the attorneys of Zukerman Lear Murray & Brown Co., L.P.A., are relentless in defending our clients. From federal and state felonies to white-collar crimes, misdemeanors, and OVI cases, we take immediate action to prevent charges and prepare for trial with the goal of dismissal or acquittal. We also ﬁght for our clients in custody disputes, personal injury claims, and civil litigation. Since 1993, ZLM's clients have known that they have a team of attorneys on their side who will never rest!

Planning to sue? Secure legal counsel first

SHANNON MORTLAND

In the age of Googling any topic and seeking the assistance of arti cial intelligence, people are more likely than ever to attempt to le a lawsuit without the help of an attorney. While there is a lot of helpful information on the internet, attorneys agree people should proceed with caution.

A lot can go wrong when someone attempts to take on the legal system without the help of an attorney, and even a smart person with good intentions can set themselves up for failure.

For example, the person could miss the deadline to le the lawsuit, le against the wrong party, or even le the lawsuit in the wrong court, according to Patrick Krebs, litigation attorney with Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP in Cleveland.

An attorney can save a person time and money from the outset by assessing whether the claim is worth taking to court, according to Chris O’Connell, principal and litigator at Singerman, Mills, Desberg & Kauntz Co., L.P.A. in Beachwood.

“ e biggest misconception is that every time someone feels they have been wronged that they have a viable claim,” O’Connell said. “With good counsel, you can avoid the time and expense associated with ling a lawsuit that is dead on arrival.”

Further, there is no checklist of what needs to be in a

complaint, but there are certain things that are expected, according to Josh Payne, personal injury attorney at Nurenberg Paris in Cleveland. If the person doesn’t follow expectations and rules, the lawsuit could be dismissed, he said.

“Attorneys are trained to gather facts and ask follow-up questions that often uncover additional facts and details their clients overlooked or didn’t think were important,” Krebs said. “Attorneys then apply those facts to the applicable law and come up with a legal strategy to advance their clients’ objectives.”

Sometimes the courts are not involved at all.

“Some of the best work that I do for clients is when I either prevent a lawsuit from getting led or I caution them and they agree not to le a lawsuit,” O’Connell said. “Not every wrong is a legally recognized claim.”

at’s why a person can’t sue someone just because they’ve done something they don’t like. ere must be a legitimate cause of action, Payne said.

“Di erent types of causes of action have di erent statutes of limitation, which is the time you have by law to le a lawsuit,” he added. “Go to an attorney that specializes in the type of law you need.”

Matters only get progressively more complicated as they move through the legal system, Payne said.

e old adage says that the person who represents himself has a fool for a client. e same is true for someone ling a lawsuit on their own behalf, said O’Connell, who notes that he does not get too many calls on frivolous matters.

ough the courts will take such cases, also known as pro se, seriously, “pro se litigants are at a marked disadvantage if the other side is represented by counsel because the attorney has special training that the pro se litigant does not have,” Krebs said.

With the exception of small claims court, where attorneys are not always necessary, it’s best to seek the advice of an attorney from the start, the attorneys agreed.

“When you have an issue with your car, you take it to a mechanic because they are trained to diagnose the problem and get you back on the road,” Krebs said. “ e same is true if you have a legal issue.”

Krebs O’Connell Payne

Consult attorney when considering slander or libel lawsuit

SHANNON MORTLAND

It may be difficult to hear someone say mean or inappropriate things about another, or even spread rumors and lies. The question is whether those words qualify as libel or slander and if they could be successfully challenged in court.

Whether the words are spoken (slander) or written (libel), the words must be more than an opinion, which is generally completely protected under the First Amendment, according to Colin R. Ray, principal at McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Liffman Co., LPA, in Cleveland.

A person cannot sue for slander or libel just because they

“They

do not like something someone said about them, he said.

“In practice, there is a triangle of things we look for,” Ray said.

The words would need to have caused harm and show negligence, there must be a chance for big economic damages and that money must be collectible, he said.

“We turn down a very large percentage of defamation cases,” Ray said. “It’s very common for people to lie. It’s less common to find big economic damages. It’s usually economic damages and collectability that kick the legs out from under the stool.”

He recommended calling a lawyer if someone thinks they have been a victim of libel or slander to determine if a case

“Zashin has a deep bench in terms of partners and staff.They have dealt with complex matters... know the law and have been very successful for their clients. I think they are one of the best.”

could stand up in court.

“A perfect defamation case, for example, is in the neighborhood of being falsely accused of a heinous crime in a provably false way that results in you losing your job,” Ray added. “For a ‘regular person,’ it has to have really, really hurt you economically and it has to be collectible. You can’t get blood out of a stone.”

Social media has made slander and libel cases a little easier to prove because it provides evidence that the words were written or said on video, he said. It can be easy to prove a false statement, he added.

However, social media providers enjoy a high degree of immunity under federal law, Ray said, so they cannot be sued easily for libel or slander.

The rules are different for public officials and public figures. He said it is very difficult to defame anybody who is holding public office or is a household name because people talking about them is part of the job that they chose.

“Citizens need to be able to speak out against their public officials,” Ray said.

If a person is considering suing for slander or libel, it is best to seek the advice of an attorney who is trained in that type of law.

People must also consider how much of their lives they want to go public, he said.

“Cases can get nasty during litigation,” Ray said.

Shannon Mortland is a freelance journalist.

Tucker joins Hahn Loeser & Parks as partner

Adam F. Tucker recently joined Hahn Loeser & Parks as a partner in its Cleveland office and a member of the firm’s labor and employment practice area.

Tucker advises public and private sector clients on employment and other litigation matters, drawing on his extensive experience in private practice and 16 years in local government, according to a news release.

“We are very pleased to add Adam to our growing team,” Steven E. Seasly, labor and employment chair, said in the release. “His deep experience with labor and employment issues in a government setting will strengthen our ability to deliver effective, tailored solutions for our clients.”

Tucker has tried cases in both federal and state courts and argued appeals before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd and 6th Circuits.

Prior to Hahn Loeser, Tucker served as city attorney for Murfreesboro, Tenn., a city with more than 1,500 employees and 175,000 residents.

A Northeast Ohio native, Tucker earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio, and received his juris doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law in Charlottesville. Tucker

TOP 10 RANKED #3

Ian N. Friedman

IAN N. FRIEDMAN, ESQ.

Selected

IAN N. FRIEDMAN, ESQ.

ERIC NEMECEK, ESQ.

ERIC F. LONG, ESQ.

Selected to Super

IAN N. FRIEDMAN, ESQ.

Friedman

Selected to Super Lawyers

Friedman

IAN N. FRIEDMAN, ESQ.

Selected to Super Lawyers

ERIC NEMECEK, ESQ.

Selected to Super Lawyers

ERIC NEMECEK, ESQ.

Selected to Super Lawyers

ERIC NEMECEK, ESQ.

Selected to Super Lawyers

ERIC F. LONG, ESQ.

Selected to Super Lawyers

ERIC F. LONG, ESQ.

Selected

Selected to Super Lawyers

ERIC F. LONG, ESQ.

Selected to Super Lawyers

Friedman Nemecek Long & Grant, LLC is frequently called upon by individuals and organizations across the United States and abroad to render superior legal representation in the most sensitive and highproﬁle criminal defense matters. From the investigative to trial stages of the criminal justice process, their creative and driven approaches regularly earn their clients the greatest successes.

ERIC F. LONG, ESQ.

Selected to Super Lawyers

MADELYN GRANT, ESQ.

Selected

MADELYN GRANT, ESQ.

Selected to Rising Stars

GRANT, ESQ.

Selected to Super Lawyers TYLER WALCHANOWICZ, ESQ.

Selected to Rising Stars

GRANT, ESQ.

Selected

ESQ.

TYLER WALCHANOWICZ, ESQ.

Selected to Rising Stars

LUCAS D. TROTT, ESQ.

Selected

LUCAS D. TROTT, ESQ.

Selected to Rising Stars

LUCAS D. TROTT, ESQ.

Selected to Rising Stars

Frantz Ward expands to Columbus, adds partners

Frantz Ward recently announced it is expanding into Central Ohio with an o ce in Columbus.

Partners Benjamin J. MacDowell and Matthew J. Wiles will lead the o ce at 20 E. Broad St., Suite 200.

e expansion has been highly anticipated and underscores the rm’s commitment to serving the needs of an ever-expanding client base, greatly bene tting our business, litigation, construction, labor and employment, logistics, and cannabis clients, as well as others involved in the area, according to a news release.

While MacDowell and Wiles are the rm’s rst Columbus-based attorneys, managing partner Christopher G. Keim will oversee the o ce in addition to his role in Cleveland.

MacDowell concentrates his practice on corporate law, leveraging a background in both commercial and government practice to assist clients with contracts and governance, business and franchise acquisitions and sales, business transactions and governance, commercial real estate and leasing law, and estate and business succession matters, according to the release

complex litigation, while Waxman has almost 40 years of experience helping clients with environmental matters, environmental insurance, commercial real estate, commercial real estate nancing, construction, leasing, corporate governance and business acquisitions and divestitures, and he will join the corporate/business law group, according to the release.

Wiles focuses his practice in the transportation and logistics industry, primarily representing freight brokers in a wide range of litigation and arbitration matters. His experience involves years of civil and business litigation, as well as serving as outside general counsel for clients with California-speci c business and employment issues, according to the release.

Also, Michael Blumenthal and David Waxman recently joined the Clevelando ce at 200 Public Square, Suite 3000 as partners and are helping establish its new environmental practice group, according to a second news release.

Blumenthal, who has over 30 years of experience in environmental law, advises clients across manufacturing, energy, oil and gas, nance and real estate on compliance, regulatory matters, and

“Michael and David’s experience and proven results in environmental matters will be instrumental as the rm launches its new Environmental Law Practice Group,” Keim said in the release. “Michael’s deep focus in environmental law, combined with David’s broad business law background, will allow the rm to guide clients through complex regulatory landscapes, enforcement matters, and the business challenges that intersect with them.”

Frantz Ward’s environmental practice group will help deliver legal counsel to help clients manage environmental risk, secure regulatory approvals and move projects along, according to the release.

Blumenthal

Waxman

MacDowell

Wiles

Lakeside Place | 323 Lakeside Ave. West, Suite 450 Cleveland, OH 44113 | Phone: 216-696-4514 www.michaeljgoldberg.net

MICHAEL J. GOLDBERG, ESQ

Federal judge tosses $10M suit against Georgetown, Jewish student, Canary Mission

MIKE WAGENHEIM, AARON BANDLER | JNS

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on March 31against Aneesa Johnson, whom Georgetown University hired in August 2023 as assistant director of academic and faculty affairs at its Walsh School of Foreign Service. Johnson sued for $10 million in damages after the university fired her for a series of antisemitic posts on social media.

Rachel Wolff, a Jewish dual-degree student at the Georgetown foreign service and law schools, researched Johnson after the latter was hired and found, via a profile from the watchdog Canary Mission, that Johnson had posted

things like “You know why I call them Zio bitches, because they’re dogs,” using a derogatory term for “Zionist.”

Another post, which included an image of an Orthodox Jewish boy, stated that “when the world hates you because you are a thief and grew up looking like a shaytan,” an Islamic reference to the devil. “Growing up Israeli.”

Wolff posted what she found, and Johnson was suspended and then fired. Johnson then sued Georgetown for wrongful termination and added Wolff, Canary Mission and several of the watchdog’s funders, and others who posted critically about her anti-Jewish statements, to the lawsuit.

Johnson alleged in her lawsuit that her posts were the

result of “lived experience” and that her story reflects “the systematic dispossession and institutionalized discrimination that Palestinians have endured under Europe’s Zionist apartheid regime in occupied Palestine.” She also referred to the “genocide” she has suffered “secondarily as a displaced refugee living in exile.”

The court called the case “a proxy war of sorts for the conflict that continues to play out on college campuses over events in Israel and Gaza.”

Free speech is not free of consequences, the court said. “If our words are caustic and hurtful, they may not only injure others but also sully our own reputations and cost us valuable opportunities and benefits, including in employment.”

The ruling said that such consequences are particularly true for “those entrusted with the education of our students and future leaders.”

“Members of the academy – and, yes, judges and other public figures whose words reach impressionable ears –should model respectful discourse for those next up the rungs,” it said.

Johnson’s role at Georgetown was to be the “primary point of contact” for master’s students on “everything academic,” according to the school.

Paul Eckles, senior litigation counsel at the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which partnered with Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher to represent Wolff, told JNS that “our client never should have been sued.”

“As the court found, nothing that my client posted was false,” Eckles said. “Nothing that my client posted was wrongful.”

“The decision is great vindication for our client. It’s a great victory for the First Amendment right to free speech, including the right to draw attention to bigotry and hateful speech,” he said. “We commend our client for having the courage to speak out.”

Eckles told JNS that there is a growing number of “frivolous” cases, in which those who call attention to Jewhatred are being sued.

“People are asserting these claims to try and silence people,” he said.

The ruling “establishes a clear precedent that people have the right to free speech, to draw attention to antisemitism that they witnessed and that the court process cannot be used to silence them and squelch that right,” he told JNS.

The court dismissed all of Johnson’s claims, except those against Canary Mission. It admonished Johnson’s legal for specious reasoning in trying to tie donors to Canary Mission’s profile of Johnson and Georgetown’s decision to fire her, especially as it verified that the antisemitic posts were not misrepresented.

The judge disciplined Johnson’s lawyer for going after two of Canary Mission’s donors, the Jewish Federation Bay Area and the Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation. Per the final order, Johnson may file a motion for default judgment against Canary Mission, since it was named and served as a defendant but chose not to participate in the trial.

Adam Fried Shane Lawson

Phillip Ciano Andy Goldwasser

Adam Fried Shane Lawson

Phillip Ciano Andy Goldwasser

Adam Fried Shane Lawson

Phillip Ciano Andy Goldwasser

PHow divorce should protect child’s education

ANDREW ZASHIN aaz@zashinlaw.com

arents across the country and around the world often push their children to reach the highest levels of academic success. For many, admission to the most elite institutions, particularly the Ivy League, is seen as a defining marker of achievement leading to life-altering success.

Yet with limited spots, intense competition and nancial constraints, many capable students will not have access to these institutions. is is an unfortunate reality of the academic ecosystem. Still, the opportunity to truly excel is not limited to a small number of elite schools. More important, in many cases, are the environments parents help create for their children, which can shape their success in lasting ways, regardless of where they ultimately enroll.

A recent analysis in e Atlantic suggests that the value of an Ivy League education lies less in classroom instruction and more in the environment they foster. Central to the article is the idea that the substance of education is fungible. However, what is irreplaceable is the intangible environment in which students are educated. Students are surrounded by high-achieving peers, strong networks and a culture that reinforces ambition and opportunity. Over time, these factors help shape long-term outcomes.

Parents, it seems, can have a meaningful in uence on their children’s futures by intentionally shaping the environments in which they are raised and educated. is insight extends well

beyond higher education. If environment plays a de ning role in success, then the environments children grow up in deserve careful attention, particularly in the context of divorce.

Family law often focuses on custody arrangements, parenting time and nancial support. ese issues are essential. However, children also bene t from consistent access to stable, opportunityrich environments that support their development over time. Divorce can disrupt those environments through relocation, changes in school districts and shifts in daily structure. ese changes are not neutral. ey can in uence a child’s peer group, expectations and long-term trajectory.

Parents should aim to provide their children with an “Ivy League-like” environment, one de ned by strong peer groups, high expectations and access to opportunity, regardless of marital status, wealth or the institution a child ultimately attends. Even when divorce introduces disruption, maintaining a focus on long-term growth and development remains essential.

Support for a child’s future success must extend beyond nances. Tools such as 529 college savings plans are important and should be prioritized, but nancial preparation alone is not enough. Preparing a child for future opportunities requires sustained investment in academic development, extracurricular involvement, mentorship and guidance. It re ects years of e ort in creating a home environment that fosters discipline, curiosity and resilience. Decisions surrounding 529 college savings plans can also serve as a model for how parents approach a child’s future more broadly after divorce. When structured with a focus on long-term outcomes, rather than short-term disagreement, they re ect a shared investment in a child’s success. at same approach should carry over into decisions

about schooling, environment and developmental support, where consistency and cooperation are often just as important as nancial contributions. e choices parents make in these areas are critical and can play a decisive role in shaping whether a child has the opportunity to succeed in the future.

e environment provided at an Ivy League, or any collegiate institution whether private or public, builds upon and re nes the foundation that families can and should be establishing at home. In many ways, these institutions serve as a continuation of that early environment, helping prepare students for the transition into adulthood.

For many families, education has long been viewed as a pathway to opportunity and stability across generations. at principle remains true. For parents navigating divorce, the question is not only what will be divided in separation, but what type of environment can be cultivated for their children going forward and how it will shape their development. Decisions about where a child lives, where they attend school and how they are supported over time are decisions that shape their future. Preserving access to strong environments, and the support systems that sustain them, should remain a central priority and can have a lasting impact on a child’s ability to succeed.

Andrew Zashin writes about law for the Cleveland Jewish News. He is the founding partner of Zashin Law in Mayfield Heights.

DISCLAIMER

The Cleveland Jewish News does not make endorsements of political candidates and/or political or other ballot issues on any level. Letters, commentaries, opinions, advertisements and online posts appearing in the Cleveland Jewish News, on cjn.org or our social media pages reflect the views and thoughts of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Cleveland Jewish Publication Company, its board, officers or staff or any other organization unless explicitly stated.

Presidential war powers in Iran conflict: Constitutional questions persist

LARRY W. ZUKERMAN AND ADAM M. BROWN Special to the CJN

With U.S. military operations against Iran having concluded a major phase under Operation Epic Fury and a fragile ceasefire now in place, the longstanding debate over the scope of presidential authority to initiate hostilities remains unresolved.

On Feb. 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes on Iranian targets under the code name Operation Epic Fury.

The actions targeted nuclear facilities, missile and drone capabilities, naval assets, defense infrastructure and leadership sites, including the reported killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

President Donald Trump described the operation as a necessary response to imminent threats posed by Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile capabilities and regional activities.

The administration notified Congress within 48 hours, invoking the president’s authority as commander in chief under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution divides war powers between the branches: Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power “To declare War,” while Article II, Section 2 designates the president as commander in chief of the armed forces. Since World War II, no formal declaration of war has been issued by Congress. Presidents of both parties have frequently initiated military actions without prior legislative approval, citing self-defense, protection of U.S. interests or rapid response to emerging threats. The 1973 War Powers Resolution, passed over President Richard Nixon’s veto, requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours when U.S. forces are introduced into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is likely. It further directs that such forces be withdrawn within 60 days (extendable to 90 days) unless Congress declares war or provides specific statutory authorization.

In the Iran conflict, the administration maintained that the strikes and subsequent operations, which included over 13,000 targets struck in 38 days, fell within the president’s constitutional powers to defend the nation and its allies without constituting a full-scale war requiring congressional declaration. A two-week ceasefire was announced on April 7, 2026, shortly before a presidential deadline related to reopening the Strait of Hormuz. According to media sources, including CNN, as of April 14, 2026, the ceasefire holds tenuously, though a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports has been implemented following the collapse of recent talks in Islamabad.

Throughout the conflict, lawmakers introduced multiple resolutions under the War Powers Resolution seeking to direct the withdrawal of U.S. forces absent explicit congressional authorization. These measures, often led by Democrats with some bipartisan support, were largely blocked along party lines in both the Senate and House. Proponents of stronger congressional oversight argued that sustained military operations exceed the bounds of limited self-defense and that the framers intended Congress to participate in decisions of such gravity to prevent unchecked

executive action.

Supporters of broad presidential authority countered that modern threats – such as nuclear proliferation, proxy attacks and disruptions to critical shipping lanes – require swift executive decision-making. They pointed to historical precedents and the practical difficulties of securing prior approval in fast-evolving crises. The administration emphasized that the operation achieved its stated military objectives without seeking new statutory authorization, while still complying with notification requirements under the War Powers Resolution.

As the ceasefire period unfolds and discussions continue regarding longer-term arrangements, the constitutional allocation of war powers continues to invite examination. Existing laws already permit defensive actions in emergencies while reserving to Congress the authority to authorize prolonged engagements.

Whether greater legislative involvement in future military decisions would enhance constitutional balance or impede timely responses to threats is a question that endures beyond any single conflict. In the meantime, communities across Ohio and the nation will continue to observe how these foundational principles shape American foreign policy and national security in an uncertain world.

For more information about Larry W. Zukerman, Adam M. Brown and the law firm of Zukerman, Lear, Murray & Brown, Co., LPA, visit the firm’s website at zukerman-law.com.

Content provided by advertising partner.

DISCLAIMER

Jeffrey D. Zimon, Esq.

Zimon Law provides businesses with access to cost-effective employee benefits and compensation advice and counsel.

29325 Chagrin Boulevard l Suite 102 l Pepper Pike l 44122 216-678-9300 (office) l 216-789-8775 (mobile) jzimon@zimonlaw.com

Zukerman

Brown

NY town to pay $19M after blocking Chabad construction

GRACE GILSON | JTA

After nearly two decades of legal sparring, a town on Long Island has been ordered to pay a local Chabad center $19 million, settling claims that o cials unlawfully blocked the construction of a synagogue on its rabbi’s property.

Rabbi Aaron Konikov and Lubavitch of Old Westbury sued the Village of Old Westbury in 2008, after the village passed a law in 2001 governing places of worship as Konikov sought to build a synagogue on his

property.

Local o cials enacted the law two years after Konikov planned a ceremony to announce a new building on the land where he already operates a synagogue. ey decreed that houses of worship could be built only on plots of 12 acres or more. Konikov owns a 9-acre plot.

In October 2025, U.S. District Judge Gary Brown ruled that the 2001 ordinance “unconstitutionally discriminates against the free exercise of religion and is therefore facially invalid.”

Old Westbury agreed to pay the plainti s in the suit $19 million as part of a consent decree, which was signed by Brown on March 18, Newsday reported.

“ is consent decree may not be modi ed, changed or amended except in writing signed by each of the parties approved by the court,” Brown wrote. “Each party participated fully in the negotiation and drafting of the terms of this decree, and any ambiguity shall not be construed against any party.”

the community can worship, learn, and grow for decades.”

Konikov will soon be switching into construction mode for his long hoped-for synagogue, for which preliminary plans show a 20,875-square-foot building and an adjacent parking lot.

e $19 million payment will be made by the village’s insurance providers, and Lubavitch of Old Westbury has until Jan. 15, 2027, to apply for a special-use permit from the village to build a synagogue, according to Newsday.

FREE: 844-SNDL-LAW (763-5529)

W. Market St. Suite 103

OH 44333

Kornikov’s lawyer, Eric Robinson, welcomed the resolution of the lawsuit in an emailed statement to JTA.

“Rabbi Konikov struggled for 34 years to reach this point. He is grateful for the Constitution and the involvement of the Court,” Robinson wrote. “Rabbi Konikov and everyone working with him look forward to working cooperatively with the Village, and to building and developing facilities where

e ruling marks a notable victory for emissaries of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, which has often been met with legal challenges when establishing centers.

In July 2025, the Village of Atlantic Beach in New York agreed to pay Chabad of the Beaches $950,000 to settle a legal battle over the construction of a new community center.

Man sentenced to year in prison for antisemitic voicemail threats

JNS

Derek A. Fulfer, 31, of Casper, Wyo., was sentenced to more than a year in federal prison after admitting to making antisemitic threats against the AntiDefamation League, federal prosecutors announced on April 10.

Fulfer was sentenced to 12 months and one day in prison, followed by two years of supervised release. A U.S. District Judge for the District of Wyoming imposed the sentence on April 3. Fulfer is scheduled to report to prison on June 1.

According to prosecutors, Fulfer made a series of threatening phone calls on March 5, 2025, leaving voicemails at Anti-Defamation League o ces in Colorado and Texas.

An FBI a davit states that the messages included violent and antisemitic threats against Jewish people and urged recipients to harm themselves. Court lings allege that Fulfer said in one of the messages, “Six

million Jews didn’t die, I wish six million would’ve died. In fact, if I ever get a chance, six million Jews will die again.”

Fulfer initially denied making the calls when interviewed by the FBI, but later admitted to placing them and leaving the messages, authorities said.

He pleaded guilty on Jan. 8 to transmitting interstate threats, a federal o ense involving communications made across state lines.

U.S. Attorney Darin Smith stated that the defendant’s statements were not protected speech.

“True threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment,” Smith stated, adding that the voicemails “were indeed threatening and caused great concern for ADL employees.”

“ is behavior is unacceptable, and we will prosecute these cases to the fullest extent of the law,” he said.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Boulder can’t charge fees for bodycam footage in alleged misconduct cases

JOHN HERRICK / BOULDER REPORTING LAB BOULDER REPORTING LAB

The Colorado Court of Appeals recently ruled that the city of Boulder cannot charge fees for body camera footage related to a complaint of officer misconduct, a decision supporters say is a major win for police transparency and accountability across Colorado.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by Yellow Scene Magazine, which covers Boulder County and the Denver metro area, after the city required journalists to pay more than $8,000 for all body camera footage of a December 2023 shooting in which officers killed Jeanette Alatorre. The lawsuit argued the fees were “prohibitive,” effectively shielding the footage from disclosure.

Civil rights attorneys argued the charges violated the 2020 Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act, a Colorado police accountability law enacted following national protests over police killings. The law requires agencies to release footage within 21 days of all incidents involving a misconduct complaint. It includes no provision for fees.

“Today’s ruling reaffirms what should have been obvious to Boulder when this lawsuit was filed two years ago – police departments can’t use exorbitant fees to hide their officers’ misconduct behind a paywall,” Matthew Simonsen, an attorney with Grata Law and Policy LLC representing Yellow Scene, said in a statement.

Sarah Huntley, a spokesperson for the

city, said the city is aware of the ruling and is evaluating its legal options. Boulder could ask the Colorado Supreme Court to review the case.

Boulder had argued that fees were necessary to recover costs associated with blurring and muting sections of footage to protect privacy. The city cited the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act, a separate state law that allows agencies to charge “reasonable fees” for records. It also contended that because the legislature never provided funding for the review and production of recordings, an “unfunded mandate” law made the city’s obligations optional.

The three-judge panel rejected both arguments. It found the fee provision in the criminal justice records law applies only to requests made under that statute, not the accountability law. And it said that even if the mandate were unfunded, the Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act prevails because it is more recent and more specific.

“The conspicuous absence of a fee provision in the Integrity Act is telling,” Judge Stephanie Dunn wrote. “After all, the General Assembly knows how to include a fee provision if it intends one.”

Chief Judge Gilbert M. Román and Judge Craig R. Welling joined the opinion.

Under the ruling, Boulder was required to release body camera footage from the Alatorre shooting without requiring payment. Alatorre was shot and killed

after residents leaving the North Boulder Recreation Center reported she was carrying what appeared to be a gun. She seemed to ignore officers’ commands to drop the weapon and walked onto residential side streets, according to body camera footage. Officers fired less-lethal bean bag rounds at her, but they had no apparent effect. She sustained eight rifle shot wounds. The gun was later determined to be an air pistol designed to resemble a 9-millimeter handgun.

If the ruling stands, it will make it easier for residents across Colorado to access video evidence of police use of force.

An amicus brief filed in the case by the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition and the ACLU of Colorado cited challenges journalists face in obtaining body camera footage. A Denver Post editor said the newsroom relies primarily on footage voluntarily released by departments because

of high costs. A 9NEWS investigative reporter was quoted more than $4,000 for footage of a fatal police shooting. A Denver7 producer said steep fees could “eliminate our ability to obtain these public records.”

“This is a very significant win for police transparency and accountability in Colorado,” Jeff Roberts, executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, told Boulder Reporting Lab. “Without this ruling, agencies could charge hundreds or thousands of dollars for bodycam footage depicting possible officer misconduct. What would have been the point of a law requiring the disclosure of such footage if news organizations and the public couldn’t afford to pay for it?”

This story was originally published by Boulder Reporting Lab and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

Trump administration fires 2 judges who blocked deportations of pro-Palestinian activists

GRACE GILSON | JTA

The Trump administration on April 10 red two judges who blocked the deportations of international students involved in pro-Palestinian activism.

One of the judges, Roopal Patel, a Boston immigration court judge, oversaw the Trump administration’s immigration case against Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish Tufts University doctoral student who was detained by ICE agents on the street in Somerville last March.

In February, Patel found there were no grounds to deport her, following a months-long legal battle with the Trump administration and opposition to her arrest from Jewish students and groups.

e other judge red on April 10, Nina Froes of

Chelmsford, Mass., blocked the deportation of Mohsen Mahdawi, a pro-Palestinian student activist at Columbia University and green card holder from the West Bank, in February.

Froes told e New York Times that she had “fully expected” her ring and said she was unsure if ruling against Mahdawi could have changed the outcome.

“I don’t know what’s in the minds of other people,” Froes said. “But I can’t imagine it was helpful.”

e rings of the judges comes as the Trump administration has dismissed over 100 immigration judges and hired more than 140 permanent and temporary judges seen as more aligned with the president’s immigration agenda, according to the New York Times.

e detentions of Mahdawi and Öztürk last year were

part of a broader immigration crackdown by the Trump administration on non-citizens who had participated in campus pro-Palestinian protests that drew allegations of antisemitism.

Many of those detained as part of the crackdown were later shielded from immediate removal after judges blocked the federal government’s attempts to deport them, including Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia graduate and protest leader.

On April 10, the Board of Immigration Appeals denied Khalil’s bid to dismiss his deportation case, which remains ongoing. Khalil called the board “biased and politically motivated” following the ruling.

Last month, the last person still detained in the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus protests, Leqaa Kordia, was released from ICE custody.

Missouri legislature approves bill adopting Jew-hatred definition for public schools

JNS

Missouri lawmakers have passed legislation adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working de nition of antisemitism in the state’s public education system, sending the measure to Gov. Mike Kehoe.

e state Senate approved HB 2061 on April 9 after earlier passage in the House, clearing the bill’s nal legislative hurdle. e bill, sponsored by George Hruza, a Republican state representative, and Curtis Trent, a Republican state senator, states that

“antisemitism is a form of discrimination” and is intended to address “discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and denial of equal access arising from antisemitism in educational institutions.”

Under the legislation, public K-12 schools and state-funded colleges and universities must incorporate the IHRA de nition into their codes of conduct and treat antisemitic incidents “in an identical manner to discrimination motivated by race.” e legislation also mandates that schools prohibit antisemitic harassment and ensure equal access to classes, counseling and other educational services. It requires

designated Title VI coordinators at the state’s education agencies to monitor, investigate and report incidents, with annual ndings submitted to the legislature.

e IHRA de nition describes antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” and includes examples such as Holocaust denial and certain comparisons involving Israel.

Hruza, a second-generation Holocaust survivor, praised “the courage of the numerous students who gave heartrending testimony of their antisemitic experiences in their schools and university.”

“ is legislation will begin to address

the 300+% rise in antisemitism in Missouri since the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israelis, providing substantive protection for our Jewish students,” he stated. “With a bipartisan vote in the House and unanimous support in the Senate, our Jewish community can be assured that the Missouri General Assembly has their back.” irty-eight U.S. states have adopted or endorsed the IHRA antisemitism de nition, according to the Combat Antisemitism Movement. e organization stated that it has been tracking and supporting IHRA legislative initiatives across 11 states, including Missouri.

Judge: Pentagon violating court order to restore access to reporters

MICHAEL KUNZELMAN AND DAVID BAUDER | ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON – A federal judge on April 9 ruled that the Defense Department is violating his earlier order to restore access to the Pentagon for reporters, a setback in the administration’s efforts to impede the work of journalists.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman sided with The New York Times for the second time in a month. He had earlier said the Pentagon’s new credential policy violated journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process. On April 9, he said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s team had tried to evade his March 20 ruling by putting in new rules that expel all reporters from the building unless guided by escorts.

“The department simply cannot reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ action and expect the court to look the other way,” Friedman wrote.

Friedman had ordered Pentagon officials to reinstate the press credentials of seven Times reporters and stressed that his decision applies to “all regulated parties.” The Pentagon building serves as the headquarters for U.S. military operations.

Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell said it disagrees with the ruling and intends to appeal. Parnell said in a social media post that the department has “at all times” complied with judge’s orders, reinstating journalists’ credentials and issuing “a materially revised policy that addressed every concern” identified by the judge.

“The Department remains committed to press access at the Pentagon while fulfilling its statutory obligation to ensure the safe and secure operation of the Pentagon Reservation,” he wrote.

Times attorney Theodore Boutrous said the ruling “powerfully vindicates both the Court’s authority and the First Amendment’s protections of independent journalism.”

In October, reporters from mainstream

news outlets walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules. The Times sued the Pentagon and Hegseth in December to challenge the policy.

President Donald Trump has fought against the press on several levels since returning to his second term, suing The Times and The Wall Street Journal, and cutting funding for public radio and television because he did not like their coverage. At the same time, he frequently talks to the media and responds to reporters who call him on his cell phone.

In a series of briefings on the Iran War, Hegseth has frequently ignored or insulted legacy media reporters let in to cover the events, while concentrating on questions from friendly conservative media.

Times attorneys accused the Pentagon of violating the judge’s March 20 order, “both in letter and spirit” with its revised policy. The newspaper said that Pentagon was also trying to impose unprecedented rules dictating when reporters can offer anonymity to sources.

Friedman said that the access the Pentagon made available to permit holders “is not even close to as meaningful as the broad access” they previously had.

Government lawyers said the Pentagon’s revised policy fully complies with the judge’s directives. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell has said the administration would appeal Friedman’s March 20 decision.

The Pentagon Press Association, which includes Associated Press reporters, said the Pentagon’s interim policy preserves provisions that Friedman deemed to be unconstitutional while also adding new restrictions on credential holders.

“In effect,” Justice Department attorneys wrote, “Plaintiffs ask this Court to expand the Order to prohibit the Department from ever addressing the security of the Pentagon

“The department simply cannot reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ action and expect the court to look the other way.”

Paul Friedman U.S. District Judge

through a press credentialing policy with conditions that may address similar topics or concerns as the enjoined conditions. The Order does not say that, and this Court should not read it to say that.”

The current Pentagon press corps is comprised mostly of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. Journalists from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including from the AP, have continued reporting on the military from outside the Pentagon.

Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said recent U.S. military operations in Venezuela and Iran underscore the need for public access to information about

government activities.

“Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now,” the judge wrote last month.

Friedman said the challenged policy is clearly designed to weed out “disfavored journalists” and replace them with those who are “on board and willing to serve” the administration.

“That,” he wrote, “is viewpoint discrimination, full stop.”