A federal judge has warned that Justice Department employees may have violated trial rules in their public statements and social media posts about the murder case against Luigi Mangione, who is accused of killing United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
The warning came in an order filed Wednesday by Judge Margaret Garnett, who is presiding over the case.
She stated that the comments will be considered when she rules on a pending motion regarding the death penalty.
In her order, Garnett pointed to Local Criminal Rule 23.1, which restricts lawyers and government employees from making comments that could interfere with a fair trial.
She wrote that the Justice Department had already been directed to comply with the rule earlier this year.
The Post Millennial (TPM) reported that on April 25, 2025, Garnett issued an order reminding prosecutors to make sure that high-ranking DOJ officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, understood they were bound by the rule.
The April order specifically identified the limits placed on counsel and their staff regarding public communication.
The judge quoted Local Criminal Rule 23.1(a), which makes it the duty of lawyers and their staff not to release or authorize the release of public opinions connected to pending criminal litigation if such opinions create a substantial likelihood of interfering with a fair trial or prejudicing the administration of justice.
The rule further states that any public opinion about a defendant’s guilt, innocence or the merits of the evidence in a case presumptively creates a substantial likelihood of interfering with justice.
Garnett said the recent statements referenced in the defense’s Sept. 23 letter appeared to be in direct violation of this rule and her April 25 order.
The defense letter highlighted a social media post from Chad Gilmartin, Deputy Director of the DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs.
Gilmartin reposted a video of former President Donald Trump speaking on Fox News, where Trump said Mangione “shot someone in the back as clear as you’re looking at me … he shot him right in the middle of the back — instantly dead.”
Gilmartin added the caption, “@POTUS is absolutely right.”
TPM highlighted that the post was deleted, but before its removal, it was shared by Brian Nieves, who serves as Chief of Staff and Associate Deputy Attorney General for the Deputy Attorney General.
In addition to the reposts, the letter pointed to statements made by White House officials.
TPM further noted that press secretary Karoline Leavitt referred to Mangione as a “left wing assassin [who shot United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson right in the back in New York City]” during a press briefing.
White House deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller also commented on the case, saying, “of course the healthcare CEO was brutally gunned down by another self-described so-called anti-fascist that was then celebrated by other self-described anti-fascists, so of course, really community revolutionaries.”
The defense argued that such comments improperly linked Mangione to political movements and unrelated violent incidents, which they said was inaccurate and damaging.
They claimed that the statements created a prejudicial narrative that could affect the fairness of the proceedings.
In their filing, Mangione’s attorneys stated, “The Government has indelibly prejudiced Mr. Mangione by baselessly linking him to unrelated violent events, and left-wing extremist groups, despite there being no connection or affiliation.”
They continued, “The attempts to connect Mr. Mangione with these incidents and paint him as a ‘left-wing’ violent extremist are false, prejudicial, and part of a greater political narrative that has no place in any criminal case, especially one where the death penalty is at stake.”
The defense emphasized that Mangione does not support or condone political violence and is not associated with extremist organizations mentioned in government statements.
Judge Garnett ordered the DOJ to file a response by Oct. 3 explaining how the apparent violations occurred despite her April directive.
The department must also outline what steps will be taken to prevent similar incidents.
Her order made clear that any further violations of Rule 23.1 could result in sanctions, contempt of court findings, or other judicial action.
The judge also stated that she will review the disputed statements in connection with the defendant’s death penalty motion, which was filed on Sept. 19.
