The New York City Council is considering legislation that would make it easier to suspend or revoke city-issued press credentials used for non-journalistic purposes. The proposal follows controversy involving supporters of Luigi Mangione who displayed city press passes outside court proceedings in Manhattan. It would lower the evidentiary standard for disciplinary action from clear and convincing evidence to a preponderance of the evidence. City officials say the changes are intended to ensure credentials are issued to legitimate journalists while preserving an administrative process for reviewing misconduct.

Council considers changes to press credentials

The bill was introduced Thursday and is sponsored by Councilmember Chris Banks, with Councilmembers Carmen De La Rosa and Inna Vernikov as co-sponsors. It would give the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment authority to suspend or revoke a city press pass when the preponderance of the evidence shows that disciplinary action is warranted.

The proposal is aimed at cases in which credentials are abused or used by people who are not performing journalistic work. Under the current rules, the city must establish clear and convincing evidence before taking a press pass away. The legislation would streamline that process by applying a lower civil evidentiary standard.

Mangione supporters draw attention outside court

The debate intensified after three supporters of Luigi Mangione attracted national attention in May by showing city-issued press passes to a newspaper outside the courthouse on the day of one of his hearings. The individuals were described as influencers or supporters rather than conventional newsroom journalists, although at least one was identified as an independent journalist.

Ashley Rojas and Abril Rios were photographed outside New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan in August while attending proceedings. Rojas made an offensive statement about UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, whom prosecutors say Mangione killed. Lena Weissbrot also appeared to defend the killing by making an unverified comparison involving Thompson and Usama bin Laden.

Proposed evidence standard would be lower

The central change concerns how the city determines whether a credential should be removed. The existing clear and convincing evidence standard requires a stronger showing before officials can impose the penalty. The proposed preponderance standard would allow action when the evidence indicates that misconduct was more likely than not.

Supporters of the bill say the revision would help the city respond more quickly when a press pass is being used to obtain access for purposes unrelated to reporting. The measure does not itself identify a specific credential holder or establish a criminal penalty. Its stated focus is the administration of city-issued media credentials.

Officials question credentials for non-journalists

City Council Speaker Julie Menin said the legislation is designed to address people she characterized as fans of Mangione who received press passes despite not being journalists. She said the city should ensure that credentials go to legitimate journalists and that officials should have a workable method for correcting decisions when credentials are misused.

“We want them to reform their practices so it’s really journalists, legitimate journalists, who should be getting the press credentials,” Menin said.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani previously told reporters that the three individuals involved in the controversy should not have received press passes. The proposal now moves the issue to the Council’s legislative process, where its language and potential effects on media access can be considered.

Mangione case remains before state and federal courts

The credential dispute is connected to continuing proceedings against Mangione. He pleaded guilty to federal charges earlier in 2026, while his legal team is seeking dismissal of New York state charges on double jeopardy grounds. The state murder trial was adjourned until December amid those concerns.

Mangione is accused of killing Thompson, a 50-year-old father of two from Minnesota, on a Manhattan sidewalk on Dec. 5, 2024. Investigators say surveillance video showed a person approaching Thompson from behind and firing a silenced handgun before fleeing by bicycle. Police later arrested Mangione at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania, after customers and employees recognized him from a wanted poster.

Summary

New York City lawmakers are seeking to revise the rules governing press credentials after city-issued passes were displayed by Mangione supporters outside court. The bill would lower the evidence threshold for revocation and give the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment greater ability to act when credentials are used for non-journalistic purposes. Its progress will determine how the city balances administrative oversight with access for independent and emerging journalists.

Frequently Asked Questions

What would the proposed bill change?

It would allow the city to suspend or revoke a press pass when a preponderance of the evidence supports that action, replacing the current clear and convincing evidence standard.

Why was the legislation introduced?

The measure follows controversy over city-issued press passes held by supporters of Luigi Mangione who appeared outside court proceedings and were accused by officials of using credentials for non-journalistic purposes.

Who would administer the proposed process?

The Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment would receive authority to suspend or revoke credentials under the proposed standard.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Luigi Mangione’s defense team has asked a federal judge to let him wear civilian clothing at an Aug. 11 court hearing connected to the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Mangione remains in federal custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn and is scheduled to appear before New York Supreme Court Justice Gregory Carro for a status conference. The request comes as his lawyers continue to challenge courtroom media restrictions and seek broader public access to the proceedings.

Mangione has pleaded not guilty to state and federal charges arising from Thompson’s death. Prosecutors have disputed several of the defense team’s arguments about media access, while the clothing request is described in the filing as a routine logistical matter that is not opposed by the judge or the government.

Defense seeks civilian clothing for hearing

Attorneys Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Marc Agnifilo and Jacob Kaplan asked U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett to direct the Bureau of Prisons and Metropolitan Detention Center officials to accept clothing supplied for Mangione’s Aug. 11 appearance. The proposed clothing includes a suit, shirt, socks and shoes without laces.

The request covers both the hearing itself and Mangione’s transport from the Brooklyn detention facility to court. The filing says Mangione does not have civilian clothing available for the appearance and asks officials to accept the items without objection from the state court or prosecutors.

Mangione remains in federal custody

Mangione is being held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn while the criminal cases proceed. Because he is in federal custody but is scheduled to appear in a New York state court, his lawyers sought an order addressing the practical arrangements for moving and clothing him.

The Aug. 11 proceeding is scheduled as a status conference before Justice Carro. The filing states that Carro and prosecutors do not oppose the clothing request, making the application a procedural step intended to coordinate custody and court requirements.

Case involves state and federal charges

Mangione is accused of fatally shooting Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel on Dec. 4, 2024. Authorities arrested him several days later at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania, after an employee recognized him and contacted police.

The charges are pending, and Mangione has pleaded not guilty in both the state and federal matters. The allegations concern the death of Thompson, who was UnitedHealthcare’s chief executive officer. Court proceedings have included hearings on evidence and other pretrial issues.

Defense presses broader media access

The clothing application is the latest move in a wider pretrial campaign by Mangione’s defense. His lawyers have challenged limits on media access and argued that restrictions on courtroom coverage violate constitutional rights.

The defense has also sought a livestream of portions of the proceedings and access for a larger group of journalists. Those requests have made media policy a significant issue before the anticipated trial, alongside the usual disputes over evidence and procedure.

Prosecutors reject defense media claims

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has opposed the defense’s characterization of the court’s media policies. Prosecutors have accused the lawyers of making false or misleading claims that could shape public opinion about the case.

The disagreement over courtroom access remains separate from the clothing request. In the filing seeking civilian attire, the defense said the relevant court and government officials did not object, while the broader media disputes continue to be contested.

Summary

The civilian clothing request is a logistical issue ahead of Mangione’s next state court appearance, not a ruling on the criminal allegations. The Aug. 11 status conference will take place as the defense and prosecutors continue to contest broader questions involving pretrial procedure and media access.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Mangione seeking civilian clothing?

His lawyers say he does not have civilian clothes available and want detention officials to accept a suit and other clothing for his court appearance and transport.

When and where is the next hearing?

Mangione is scheduled to appear Aug. 11 before Justice Gregory Carro in New York Supreme Court for a status conference.

What is the status of the criminal case?

Mangione has pleaded not guilty to state and federal charges connected to the fatal shooting of Brian Thompson on Dec. 4, 2024.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Luigi Mangione‘s request to livestream his upcoming murder trial has been criticized by a former federal prosecutor as a strategy to increase public pressure around the case. Neama Rahmani said widespread online coverage could allow influencers and supporters to shape public opinion and potentially affect jurors. Mangione’s defense argues that New York’s media access rules are unconstitutional and that the proceedings should be livestreamed. The trial is scheduled to begin in September in New York.

The dispute centers on whether greater access would promote transparency or create risks for a fair trial. Rahmani said the unusual request for more publicity may reflect the defense’s belief that online support could help produce jury nullification or an acquittal.

Defense seeks livestream access for September trial

Mangione’s lawyers argued in a filing that the media access rules for his state trial are unconstitutional. Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo said the defense was not consulted about the planned access rules and learned of a document titled “Media Access: PSNY v. Mangione” through an independent journalist on X.

The defense wants the proceedings livestreamed, saying broader access would support transparency. The trial is expected to take place in New York in September. Mangione is accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, who was fatally shot outside a Manhattan hotel on December 4, 2024, while traveling to a shareholder conference.

Former prosecutor sees a pressure strategy

Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of a trial law firm, said defendants in high-profile cases typically do not seek additional broadcasting because publicity can place implicit pressure on jurors. He said Mangione’s case is different because the accused has attracted a substantial online following.

“The conventional wisdom is that the defense usually doesn’t want high-profile cases broadcast. It can put implicit pressure on jurors to return a guilty verdict,” Rahmani said.

Rahmani argued that the defense may believe increased attention could create support for jury nullification, in which jurors decline to convict despite evidence that may satisfy the legal elements of an offense. He also said the publicity could contribute to an acquittal, although the ultimate decision would remain with the jury based on the evidence and instructions provided by the court.

Influencers could amplify the case online

Rahmani said livestreamed footage would be more likely than traditional courtroom sketches to generate short clips for TikTok, Instagram Reels and other platforms. In his view, those clips could keep the case continuously visible and allow influencers to discuss the proceedings for large audiences.

“The defense knows this and they want to take advantage of that influencer content and those viral videos,” Rahmani said.

The proposed strategy, as described by Rahmani, would work through repeated online discussion rather than a single courtroom event. Influencers could highlight arguments, testimony or developments in ways that reach people who do not follow ordinary trial coverage. The defense has not publicly confirmed that influencing jurors is its purpose.

Supporters and juror exposure raise concerns

Mangione supporters have gathered outside federal and state courthouses in New York. One supporter, identified as Ashley and associated with a group calling itself “The Mangionistas,” told a newspaper that she had camped outside the court in December. Another supporter described bringing a heater and tent after previously waiting outside in freezing conditions.

Rahmani said jurors are instructed to decide a case only on courtroom evidence and not on information found through social media, online searches or artificial intelligence. He nevertheless said jurors are ordinary people who may encounter outside commentary. He also raised the possibility that some people could seek jury service with an undisclosed intention to support Mangione.

New York law remains a major obstacle

Rahmani said New York state law generally prohibits livestreaming criminal trials, meaning the defense is unlikely to obtain its request unless the law changes or the judge takes an extraordinary step. He said the absence of a livestream could also prompt some members of the public to question whether the proceedings are sufficiently transparent, particularly because other high-profile trials have been broadcast.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office has separately disputed claims about the trial’s media plan. The defense’s filing and the court’s eventual ruling will determine what forms of media access are permitted. Any decision must balance public access with the accused’s right to an impartial jury and a fair trial.

Summary

The livestream dispute reflects a broader conflict between transparency and trial integrity. Mangione’s defense is seeking wider media access, while Rahmani believes the resulting online attention could affect jurors or encourage attempts to influence the panel. The court’s ruling will determine whether the September proceedings can be broadcast and how media coverage is managed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does Mangione’s defense want the trial livestreamed?

The defense argues that New York’s media access rules are unconstitutional and says the proceedings should be livestreamed to improve transparency.

What concern did Neama Rahmani raise?

Rahmani said livestreaming could provide influencers with clips to share online, potentially increasing pressure on jurors or affecting public attitudes toward the case.

What is the legal obstacle to livestreaming?

Rahmani said New York state law prohibits livestreaming criminal trials, so the request would likely require a change in the law or an extraordinary judicial decision.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Luigi Mangione’s defense team and Manhattan prosecutors are disputing how media access will be managed during his upcoming murder trial. In a filing Monday, prosecutors denied having any role in creating the court’s media plan or selecting journalists. They asked Judge Gregory Carro to remind the defense of its ethical obligations after lawyers challenged the process. Mangione is charged with murder and terrorism-related offenses in the December 2024 killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and has pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors challenge the defense account

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office filed its response Monday, August 3, 2026, in Manhattan Criminal Court. Senior Trial Counsel Joel J. Seidemann told Judge Gregory Carro that the defense had incorrectly linked prosecutors to the media access plan for the trial. The plan was developed by the New York State Office of Court Administration, according to the filing, and prosecutors said their office had no role in choosing which reporters would attend.

The dispute followed a defense filing submitted Friday. Prosecutors said the defense’s description could mislead the court and the public about who is responsible for access decisions. The prosecution characterized the accusation as an effort to undermine confidence in the proceedings.

“The District Attorney’s Office had no role in developing the Office of Court Administration’s media access plan for this trial, and will have no role in selecting which news reporters attend the trial,” Seidemann wrote.

Defense raises constitutional objections

Defense attorneys Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Marc Agnifilo and Jacob Kaplan argued that the limits on media access could amount to a partial closure of the trial. Their Friday filing cited the First, Sixth and 14th Amendments, asserting that restrictions could interfere with the public nature of the proceedings and Mangione’s constitutional rights.

The lawyers objected to the absence of an overflow courtroom, limits on coverage of jury selection and a process they described as allowing only a select group of reporters to attend. They also asked the court to broadcast the trial live or explain why a live broadcast would not be permitted. Their filing sought a public hearing about the access plan and greater disclosure about its operation.

Media access concerns focus on courtroom capacity

The defense said it had been informed that only 68 journalists would receive general access to the proceedings. The lawyers further claimed that the selection process had effectively been outsourced to a private attorney representing several legacy media organizations.

The defense asked the court to identify the journalists selected to cover jury selection and the wider trial, explain how those reporters were chosen and detail efforts to obtain an overflow courtroom. These requests center on how members of the public and press will observe a high-profile state prosecution in Manhattan when courtroom space is limited.

Prosecutors seek an ethics reminder

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office asked Judge Gregory Carro to remind Mangione’s attorneys of their professional duties under New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Prosecutors cited rules prohibiting lawyers from knowingly making false statements to a court or to third parties.

In the filing, Seidemann described the defense accusation as baseless and said it appeared intended to spread misinformation about the case and delegitimize the proceedings. The prosecution’s request does not resolve the underlying access questions, but asks the judge to address the way the defense presented its allegations.

The case and next requested steps

Luigi Mangione is accused in New York state court of fatally shooting Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel on December 4, 2024. The case includes murder and terrorism-related charges. Mangione has pleaded not guilty and has appeared at pretrial proceedings in Manhattan during 2025 and 2026.

The court must now consider the competing filings concerning media access, courtroom capacity, jury selection coverage and live broadcasting. Prosecutors also want the court to correct what they call inaccurate statements about their involvement. The defense’s attorneys and Mangione’s spokesperson were contacted for comment, but no response was included in the filing-related account.

Summary

The dispute places the administration of media access at the center of pretrial litigation in Luigi Mangione’s Manhattan case. Prosecutors reject the defense’s account of their role and are asking the judge to address the alleged misstatements, while the defense continues to seek broader access, an overflow courtroom and a live broadcast. The court’s decisions will determine how the public and media observe the proceedings.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Manhattan prosecutors deny?

They denied helping develop the New York State Office of Court Administration’s media access plan or selecting reporters for the trial.

What changes does the defense want?

The defense requested a public hearing, information about journalist selection, details about an overflow courtroom and either a live broadcast or an explanation for rejecting one.

What charges does Luigi Mangione face?

Luigi Mangione faces murder and terrorism-related charges in connection with the December 4, 2024, fatal shooting of Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel. He has pleaded not guilty.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Manhattan prosecutors asked a judge on Monday to correct what they described as false claims by Luigi Mangione’s defense team about media access to his upcoming murder trial. The defense has argued that limits on courtroom access and coverage violate constitutional guarantees of a public trial. Prosecutors denied having any role in creating the media plan or selecting journalists and asked the judge to remind defense attorneys of their professional obligations.

The dispute concerns a plan developed by the New York State Office of Court Administration, including limits on courtroom attendance, jury selection coverage and possible access for roughly 68 journalists. Mangione faces murder and terrorism-related charges in connection with the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024.

Prosecutors challenge the defense account

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office made its request in a filing to Judge Gregory Carro on August 3, 2026. Senior Trial Counsel Joel J. Seidemann said the office had no role in developing the Office of Court Administration’s media access plan and would not select the reporters permitted to attend the trial.

Prosecutors said the defense had wrongly connected the district attorney’s office to decisions made by the court administration. They asked Judge Carro to remind Mangione’s attorneys that New York’s professional conduct rules prohibit knowingly making false statements to a court or third parties.

“The District Attorney’s Office had no role in developing the Office of Court Administration’s media access plan for this trial, and will have no role in selecting which news reporters attend the trial.”

Defense raises constitutional objections

In a filing submitted several days earlier, defense attorneys Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Marc Agnifilo and Jacob Kaplan argued that the planned restrictions would amount to a partial closure of the proceedings.

The defense cited the First, Sixth and 14th Amendments, asserting that the limits could interfere with the public’s ability to observe the case and with Mangione’s right to a public trial. The attorneys also requested a live broadcast or an explanation of why a broadcast would not be allowed.

Media selection and courtroom capacity disputed

The defense objected to the absence of an overflow courtroom and to limits on coverage of jury selection. The attorneys said they had been told that only 68 journalists would receive general access to the proceedings.

They further claimed that the selection process had effectively been outsourced to a private attorney representing several legacy media organizations. The defense asked the court to identify the reporters selected for jury selection and the wider trial, explain the selection criteria and describe efforts to obtain additional courtroom space.

Murder and terrorism case remains pending

Luigi Mangione is charged in New York state court with murder and terrorism-related offenses. Prosecutors allege that he fatally shot Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel on December 4, 2024.

Mangione has pleaded not guilty. The media access dispute is a pretrial matter and does not resolve the criminal charges or determine how the trial will proceed.

Judge asked to clarify access arrangements

The defense asked Judge Carro to hold a public hearing on the access plan and provide details about the journalists who will cover jury selection and the trial. It also sought information about courtroom capacity and the possibility of a live proceeding broadcast.

Prosecutors have asked the judge to correct the record and address the attorneys’ ethical duties. The court’s response will determine whether additional explanations or changes to the access arrangements are made before proceedings begin.

Summary

The dispute reflects competing views of how public access should be managed in a closely watched criminal case. Prosecutors say the court administration, not the district attorney’s office, controls the media plan, while the defense is seeking greater transparency and access. Judge Carro is being asked to clarify the process before the trial begins.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Manhattan prosecutors ask the judge to do?

They asked Judge Carro to correct claims about the district attorney’s role in media access decisions and remind the defense of its ethical obligations.

What concerns did Mangione’s defense raise?

The defense challenged limits on courtroom attendance, jury selection coverage and journalist access, and requested a public hearing and possible live broadcast.

What charges does Mangione face?

He faces murder and terrorism-related charges in New York state court over the December 4, 2024, fatal shooting of Brian Thompson. He has pleaded not guilty.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.