Judge destroys key evidence in Luigi Mangione murder case
A New York judge has limited key evidence in the Luigi Mangione case related to the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
- On May 18, a group of supporters of Luigi Mangione, who call themselves “Mangionistas,” made inflammatory statements while wearing city-issued press passes.
- New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani said the trio “should not have received press passes” and said his office was reviewing the process and standards for press credentials.
New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani’s office is reviewing its media policies following an outcry over controversial statements made by supporters of suspected murderer Luigi Mangione while wearing city-issued press passes.
A news release from the New York Press Club identified the three as Avril Rios, Ashley Rojas and Lena Weisbrot.
New York Daily News reporter Molly Crane Newman posted multiple videos taken outside a Manhattan courthouse on May 18, showing Rojas taunting Brian Thompson, UnitedHealthcare CEO Mangione being arrested for the December 2024 shooting death, and Weisbro saying Thompson’s children are “better off without him.”
At one point, Rojas said the trio called themselves “Mangionesta,” advocating for both Mangione as an individual and youth involvement in broader social issues. The group has a presence on various online platforms, including Substack, Instagram, and TikTok. USA TODAY has reached out to the group for comment.
The New York Times reported that Mangione’s lawyer condemned the “vile and irresponsible comments” and said they “do not represent Mr. Luigi’s views or the views of tens of thousands of people around the world who have shown their support.”
Mamdani said at a May 19 press conference that the three “should not have received press passes,” adding that his office was reviewing the process and criteria for press credentials.
“And what I would say is that there needs to be a good discussion about how far the press pass should and should not be extended,” Mamdani said. “But the three people we’re talking about don’t fit into that argument.”
Qualification certification has “swung the pendulum,” says the press club.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation criticized such notions. The report said that restricting government access based on controversial speech amounts to viewpoint discrimination, which the government is prohibited by the First Amendment.
In a May 18 X post, the group wrote that journalistic objectivity is an “industry norm” and “not a prerequisite to constitutional rights.”
Seth Stern, the group’s advocacy director, said in an interview with USA TODAY that individuals who disseminate information on matters of public importance should be eligible for press passes.
But New York Press Club President David Cruz told USA TODAY there was “no indication” that the three were qualified as journalists to be eligible for press passes and criticized the “lack of transparency” in the city’s credentialing process.
“The idea of getting a credential is to give you access to places you wouldn’t normally go to get information to share with the public,” he said. “I’ve never seen anything like that in their work.”
According to the city’s website, a press pass is required to cross public barriers such as police and fire stations, and to attend city government events for members of the press.
According to the city’s website as of May 20, media pass holders are required to follow guidelines that prohibit refusing lawful orders from city officials or engaging in conduct that poses an “unreasonable risk” to individuals or the public.
The New York City Police Department issued credentials for the city’s media outlets for decades until the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment took over that responsibility in 2022.
A news release from the New York Press Club quoted Cruz as saying, “The pendulum of press certification has swung in New York City.”
“A few years ago, the police were controlling identity documents and ran into problems with press freedom,” he said. “Right now, that pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.”
The news release called on Mamdani’s office to consult with the organization as it reviews its reporting policies. Cruz told USA TODAY that the New York Press Club is “in the early stages of discussions with the mayor’s office” about the issue.
Stern put the controversy in a national context, citing actions by President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth that some press freedom advocates say are unconstitutional.
The Trump administration, for example, banned the Associated Press from certain White House events because it refused to use “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico” in response to Trump’s executive order renaming bodies of water. In October, the Pentagon implemented a media policy that prohibits news outlets from reporting information not officially authorized for publication, resulting in numerous journalists losing access to buildings. The New York Times filed a second lawsuit on May 18 over the policy.
Stern said Mamdani’s pledge to overhaul policy was an “ill-conceived response” to online outrage, a departure from the anti-press stance of Trump and Hegseth.
“It’s different in the sense that Mr. Mamdani is not making access conditional on political allegiance, but on whether someone has views that he deems reprehensible, but constitutionally it’s the same idea,” Stern said.
Mamdani’s office did not respond to USA TODAY’s request for further comment on how First Amendment protections are incorporated into the news policy review.
Breanna Frank is USA TODAY’s First Amendment reporter. please contact her bjfrank@usatoday.com.
USA TODAY’s coverage of First Amendment issues is funded by the Freedom Forum in collaboration with our journalism funding partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
