An ex-dean of nursing at St. Catherine University charged last year with embezzling $400,000 from the school through bogus contracts with her boyfriend pleaded guilty to one count of theft by swindle Tuesday and will be put on probation.

Laura Jean Fero, 55, reached a plea agreement with Ramsey County prosecution that includes up to three years of probation and a stay of imposition, which means the felony conviction will be considered a misdemeanor is she successfully completes probation. Five other felony theft by swindle charges will be dismissed at sentencing, which is set for June 11.

Laura Jean Fero (Courtesy of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office)

Fero was St. Catherine’s dean of nursing from June 2019 through Aug. 28, 2023, when she left the St. Paul private college to take a job as dean of nursing and chief academic nurse at AdventHealth University in Orlando. She’s no longer employed by the university.

Fero, who now lives in Boone, N.C., appeared for Tuesday’s plea hearing via remote. Upon questioning on facts of the case, Fero admitted she entered into contracts with Juan Ramon Bruce, 57, a Shakopee health care consultant, beginning in August 2020, and that she didn’t follow the university’s process of seeking requests for proposals beforehand.

Fero also admitted she didn’t disclose to school leadership she was involved in a romantic relationship with Bruce, who she met in 2020 on a dating website.

For the count in which she pleaded guilty, Fero affirmed a statement by Assistant Ramsey County Attorney Tom Madison that Bruce was not “producing appropriate or expected work for the size of the contract.”

Bruce was charged with the same six counts three days after Fero. A jury in July deliberated less than four hours before acquitting him of all charges. His attorney, Debra Hilstrom, told the Pioneer Press after the verdict, “We said from the very beginning that Mr. Bruce did the work that he was hired to do.”

They met on Elitesingles.com

St. Catherine officials discovered missing funds after Fero left for the Florida job. The university conducted an internal investigation. The university reported its findings to St. Paul police in late November 2023.

A police review of financial records showed Bruce’s company, JB & Associates LLC, received six payments from St. Catherine, totaling $412,644, between August 2020 and August 2023. The contracted work included outreach, marketing and market and cost analysis for continuing education development and delivery for the Catholic liberal arts school in St. Paul’s Highland Park area.

The charges against Fero say she sent an email to Bruce in October 2020 where she referenced meeting him on a dating website. Several emails she sent one day in July 2022 mentioned how they have traveled together to many places over the previous two years and how “she loves him deeply.”

Related Articles

California man arrested near Justice Kavanaugh’s home with a gun pleads guilty to attempted murder

Brooklyn Park driver charged in Wisconsin crash that killed restaurant owner David Burley

Idaho mom who killed 2 of her kids goes on trial over death of her husband

Little Canada man pleads guilty to strangling sex worker in Eagan hotel room

St. Paul resident federally indicted in MS-13 gang-related murder in Florida

The charges say a review of Fero’s university credit card showed she racked up $26,191 in expenses — airfare, rental cars, hotels and airport parking — for trips with Bruce to Miami, Atlanta and Phoenix in 2021, Cancun in 2022 and Orlando in 2023.

The investigation found additional emails indicating that Fero helped Bruce with some of the reports he was providing to the university to receive his contract funds, the charges say.

In an interview with police, Fero initially said she met Bruce from a “cold call” to St. Catherine about medical supplies and that they were not in a relationship prior to the university contracting with him. Fero later said she had met him on the dating website Elitesingles.com and that she believed the relationship did not constitute a conflict of interest.

Fero admitted to police to “editing” documents that Bruce submitted to St. Catherine, the charges say.

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is touting a Supreme Court ruling allowing it to resume deportations under the Alien Enemies Act as a major victory, but the immigration fight is far from over.

The divided court found that President Donald Trump can use the 18th century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants accused of being gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador, a finding Trump called a “GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!” in a social media post.

But the justices also decided people accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang have to get a chance to challenge their removals — a finding their lawyers called an “important victory.”

Venezuelan migrants deported from the United States arrive at Simon Bolivar International Airport in Maiquetia, Venezuela, Monday, March 24, 2025. (AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos)

The legal landscape could be more challenging, though, since it appears the people being held will have to file individually and in the district where they are detained. For many, that’s in Texas.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also weighing another case against a Maryland man deported by mistake that could shed light on the fate of more than 100 men accused of being gang members who have already been sent to prison in El Salvador.

Here’s a look at what’s next:

The ruling doesn’t let the deportations under the law resume right away

The Supreme Court’s ruling lifted a restraining order from a judge in the nation’s capital that had blocked the Trump administration from deporting people under the law.

But it doesn’t allow those deportations to start right away. The court said that the accused have to be given notice and reasonable time to try and convince a judge that they shouldn’t be deported.

Related Articles

Joe Rogan and Dave Portnoy are among the Trump backers now questioning his tariff policies

National Park Service restores original Harriet Tubman, Underground Railroad webpage

As a future of US foreign aid cuts comes into focus, so do efforts to respond

The Trump administration withdrew 11 pieces of ADA guidance. How will it affect compliance?

Supreme Court blocks order requiring Trump administration to reinstate thousands of federal workers

The families of multiple people who have already been deported under the Alien Enemies Act say they are not gang members, and should not have been deported under the law.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Fox News that she expected future hearings to be held in Texas, and for judges to deal with each case individually rather than issue orders about the group as a whole.

“It will be a much smoother, simpler hearing,” she said.

Texas may not be the only venue, though. The American Civil Liberties Union sued Tuesday on behalf of two immigrants who are currently held in New York and say they have been wrongly labeled as Tren de Aragua gang members, putting them at risk of deportation to the prison.

Many questions about Trump’s use of the act remain unresolved

The Supreme Court’s ruling did not address the constitutionality of the act or the migrants’ claim that they don’t fall within the category of people who can be deported under the law.

It’s also not clear how this ruling affects the more than 100 people who have already been sent to the El Salvador prison under the Alien Enemies Act without being given an opportunity to challenge their removals before the flights, which the court now says is necessary. The ruling didn’t address what kind of recourse, if any, those migrants may be entitled to.

In another case involving a man mistakenly deported to the El Salvador prison, the administration has said it has no way to get him back. That man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, was not deported under the Alien Enemies Act, but the administration has conceded that he shouldn’t have been sent to El Salvador because an immigration judge found he likely would face persecution by local gangs.

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed Monday to pause a deadline for the Trump administration to bring Garcia back to the U.S.

The case has become a flashpoint in Trump’s fight with the courts

Even before the Supreme Court’s ruling, the case had become one of the most contentious legal battles waged by the administration over Trump’s sweeping executive actions. Trump has called for the judge’s impeachment, prompting a rare statement from Roberts to say that such action is not the appropriate response to disagreements over court rulings.

Boasberg has been contemplating whether to hold any administration officials in contempt of court for ignoring his orders last month to turn around planes that were carrying the deportees to El Salvador.

Boasberg had been expected to rule as early as this week on whether there are grounds to find anyone in contempt. During a hearing last week, he said the Trump administration may have “acted in bad faith” by trying to rush the migrants out of the country before a court could step in to block the deportations.

It’s not clear whether Boasberg would move forward with contempt proceedings after the Supreme Court’s ruling vacating his order.

A Justice Department lawyer told the judge Monday evening that the Supreme Court’s decision “eliminates the basis” for any further action. The Justice Department has said the administration didn’t violate the judge’s order, arguing it didn’t apply to planes that had already left U.S. airspace by the time his command came down.

Associated Press writer Cedar Attanasio in New York City contributed to this story.

By FATIMA HUSSEIN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service has agreed to share immigrants’ tax data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the purpose of identifying and deporting people illegally in the U.S., according to a document signed by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

The new data-sharing arrangement was signed on Monday in the form of a “memorandum of understanding” — found in federal court filings — and will allow ICE to submit names and addresses of immigrants inside the U.S. illegally to the IRS for cross-verification against tax records.

Treasury argues that the agreement will help carry out President Donald Trump’s agenda to secure U.S. borders and is part of his larger nationwide immigration crackdown, which has resulted in deportations, workplace raids, and the use of an 18th century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants.

Advocates, however, say the IRS-DHS information sharing agreement violates longstanding privacy laws and diminishes the privacy of all Americans.

The basis for the agreement is founded in “longstanding authorities granted by Congress, which serve to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans while streamlining the ability to pursue criminals,” said a Treasury official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to explain the agency’s thinking on the agreement.

The IRS had already been called upon once to help with immigration enforcement earlier this year.

Related Articles

Supreme Court allows Trump to deport Venezuelans under wartime law, but only after judges’ review

Immigration crackdowns disrupt the caregiving industry. Families pay the price

Texas county that swung to Trump grapples with immigration crackdown after bakery is targeted

Chief Justice Roberts pauses deadline for return of Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador

Immigration Status of a Duke Basketball Star From South Sudan Is Unclear

Noem in February sent a request to Bessent to borrow IRS Criminal Investigation workers to help with the immigration crackdown, according to a letter obtained by The Associated Press. It cites the IRS’ boost in funding, though the $80 billion infusion of funds the federal tax collection agency received under the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act has already been clawed back.

A collection of tax law experts for the NYU Tax Law Center wrote Monday that the IRS-DHS agreement “threatens to violate the rights that many more Americans have under longstanding laws that protect their tax information from wrongful disclosure or dissemination.”

“In fact, it is difficult to see how the IRS could release information to DHS while complying with taxpayer privacy statutes,” they said, “IRS officials who sign off on data sharing under these circumstances risk breaking the law, which could result in criminal and civil sanctions.”

The memo states that the IRS and ICE “will perform their duties in a manner that recognizes and enhances individuals’ right of privacy and will ensure their activities are consistent with laws, regulations, and good administrative practices.”

Representatives from DHS and ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A federal judge has dismissed a case filed by former Republican candidate for Minnesota governor Scott Jensen, who alleged that state investigations of his claims regarding COVID-19 were “politically motivated.”

The court granted the medical board’s motion to dismiss Jensen’s federal lawsuit without prejudice on March 31, based on lack of standing. This is the second time the court granted the medical board’s motion to dismiss this case without prejudice, meaning Jensen can file the charges again.

Jensen, a Minnesota family practice physician who unsuccessfully ran for governor against Democrat Tim Walz in 2022, filed the federal lawsuit in June 2023, claiming the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and abused its power when investigating his claims regarding COVID-19.

His lawsuit claims his views, which contradicted those in mainstream media, were “both critical and complimentary” of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s actions.

In March 2024, the court first dismissed the case, claiming Jensen failed to sufficiently allege a concrete injury.

The first order to dismiss said Jensen’s claims that he was politically targeted and that the anonymous complaints had an “ongoing chilling and suppressing effect” did not establish standing for his argument. Jensen also claimed the board treated physicians with different views “more favorably,” but according to the court order, Jensen did not establish “standing for his viewpoint discrimination and equal protection claims.”

Jensen filed an amended complaint less than three weeks later; however, the court claimed this year that Jensen again failed to allege a concrete injury.

“Emotional distress alone is not a cognizable injury in fact that creates standing,” the court order dismissing the lawsuit said.

In a release to the Upper Midwest Law Center, Jensen said his lawsuit has never been about one person.

“It’s about all of us and our right to free speech,” he said in the release. “If it can happen to me, why couldn’t it happen to anyone?”

The UMLC responded to the court’s dismissal of Jensen’s lawsuit, noting that the center disagrees.

“Dr. Jensen will appeal, and he will win,” UMLC Senior Counsel James Dickey said in a release.

Dickey noted that Jensen had never been investigated by the medical board in his 40 years of medical practice and that Jensen was selected to be the 2016 Minnesota Family Practice Doctor of the Year.

“Suddenly, because he was willing to speak out and subsequently chose to run for governor, he was investigated by his licensing board — appointed by his opponent — five times,” Dickey said. “Anyone in his shoes would think twice about talking after that experience. He was obviously harmed by these frivolous speech investigations. The First Amendment stands in the way of that kind of weaponized government censorship.”

Related Articles

Push to release Sen. Nicole Mitchell arrest video gets new chance on appeal

St. Paul Mayor Carter appoints Matt Privratsky as interim council member

Rent control, budget, acrimony, attendance issues dog St. Paul City Council

Anti-Trump ‘Hands Off!’ rally draws thousands at Minnesota Capitol

As Northland events mount in response to Trump’s cuts, attendees ask: Where’s Stauber?