Ahead of a key court hearing Friday, June 27, authorities have publicly revealed new details in the case against Vance Boelter, the suspect in the June 14 shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses.

Multiple affidavits — one of which was unsealed on June 20 — outline how Boelter allegedly planned and carried out the attack, as well as what followed in its aftermath.

Inside Boelter’s SUV, disguised as a cop car

After Boelter fled on foot from officers in Brooklyn Park on Saturday, June 14, law enforcement searched the SUV that Boelter left behind and found five firearms, including semi-automatic assault style rifles, and “a large quantity of ammunition,” according to the post-arrest affidavit.

Law enforcement officers also reportedly found several notebooks in the SUV, among which was a list of more than 45 public officials in Minnesota, including Rep. Melissa Hortman, who was fatally shot alongside her husband, Mark, on June 14. Next to Rep. Hortman’s name was her home address, according to affidavits.

Another notebook contained lists of search engines for researching people’s personal information. Within the notes, titled “finding people,” were side notes under individual websites, including “not free,” “three days free,” “need name, phone number or address,” and “just enter a name and state.”

The SUV also contained a GPS navigation system, with a trip history that included the addresses of five public officials’ homes, according to the post-arrest affidavit.

Boelter’s family, text messages

The post-arrest affidavit said that law enforcement obtained the information to track the cell phones of Boelter and his wife, Jenny, on Saturday. After Jenny Boelter consented to a search of her phone, law enforcement saw a text sent from Vance Boelter at 6:18 a.m. on Saturday in a group text message.

“Dad went to war last night … I don’t want to say any more because I don’t want to implicate anybody,” The text message read, according to a post-arrest affidavit.

According to the affidavit, Boelter sent another text around the same time that said, “Words are not gonna explain how sorry I am for this situation … There’s gonna be some people coming to the house armed and trigger-happy and I don’t want you guys around.”

Jenny Boelter also consented to a search of her car, in which officers recovered two handguns, approximately $10,000 in cash, and passports for Jenny Boelter and her children, according to the post-arrest affidavit.

“Boelter and his wife had been ‘preppers,’ or people who prepare for major or catastrophic incidents. At some point, Boelter had given his wife a ‘bailout plan’ — i.e., a plan of where to go in case of exigent circumstances — to go [to] her mother’s residence in Spring Brook, Wisconsin,” FBI Special Agent Terry Getsch wrote in the pre-arrest affidavit.

Searches in North Minneapolis

During the search of Boelter’s North Minneapolis residence on Saturday, officers found a separate list of officials ’ names, “many of those same public officials named in the notebooks found in Boelter’s SUV,” the post-arrest affidavit said.

In another notebook recovered at the North Minneapolis residence, Rep. Hortman’s name was listed with notes saying “married Mark two children eleventh term,” and “big house off golf course two ways in to watch from one spot.”

Officers also found a receipt of a June 9 purchase from Fleet Farm, which, among other things, included a flashlight, a tactical rifle case, two types of firearm ammunition and the materials “believed to have been used to create the fake ‘POLICE’ license plate attached to Boelter’s SUV,” the post-arrest affidavit wrote.

Officers also found notebooks that contained research on websites for purchasing silicone masks, similar to the one Boelter can reportedly be seen wearing on camera footage recorded at Sen. John Hoffman’s residence in Champlin on June 14.

On the morning of June 14, Boelter reportedly met with “Witness 1,” as described in the affidavit, in North Minneapolis to purchase both an e-bike and a Buick. Witness 1 told law enforcement that Boelter carried two duffel bags with him when they met and that Boelter and Witness 1 drove together to a U.S. Bank in Robbinsdale.

Boelter withdrew $2,200, thereby emptying an account in his name, and reportedly paid Witness 1 $900 for the purchase of the e-bike and the Buick, according to the post-arrest affidavit.

Search in Green Isle

Around 2:30 a.m. on June 15, law enforcement was notified of an individual on an e-bike, approximately two miles Northeast of Boelter’s family home in Green Isle, according to the post-arrest affidavit.

After further investigation, officers discovered an abandoned Buick on Highway 25 close to the sighting of the individuals on an e-bike in Green Isle, the post-arrest affidavit said.

In the Buick, law enforcement recovered a handwritten letter to the FBI. The writer of that letter, who claimed his name was “Dr. Vance Luther Boelter,” admitted to being “the shooter at large in Minnesota involved in the two shootings the morning of Saturday.”

Boelter faces  state and federal charges in the murders of Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark, and the shooting of Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. His next court appearance is scheduled for Friday, June 27, at the U.S. courthouse in St. Paul.

If convicted, the federal charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison or the death penalty. Boelter remains in custody ahead of the hearing.

Related Articles

Congress unanimously passes resolution honoring Melissa Hortman, husband

Former House Speaker Melissa Hortman, husband Mark, to lie in state with their dog, Gilbert, on Friday

Mike Lee’s posts about the Minnesota shootings incensed fellow senators. They refused to let it go.

Suspected assassin was one of thousands Walz appointed to various boards

Suspect in Minnesota lawmaker attacks was a doomsday prepper, investigator says

 

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks.

The justices reversed lower-court rulings in favor of the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington. The high court ruled that the schools likely could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material.

The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end.

The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in the case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them.

The school district introduced the storybooks, including “Prince & Knight” and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district’s diversity. In “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” a niece worries that her uncle won’t have as much time for her after he gets married to another man.

The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years and the case is among several religious-rights cases at the court this term. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries.

Many of the removals were organized by Moms for Liberty and other conservative organizations that advocate for more parental input over what books are available to students. Soon after President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the Education Department called the book bans a “hoax” and dismissed 11 complaints that had been filed under Trump’s predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Related Articles

Supreme Court preserves key part of Obamacare coverage requirements

Supreme Court OKs fee that subsidizes phone, internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas

Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear

Deal with Beijing will speed China’s export of minerals to the US, treasury secretary says

Canadian man held by immigration officials dies in South Florida federal facility, officials say

The writers’ group Pen America said in a court filing in the Maryland case that the objecting parents wanted “a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.” Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year.

Parents initially had been allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit.

At arguments in April, a lawyer for the school district told the justices that the “opt outs” had become disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said.

The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though they didn’t send their children to public schools.

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court preserved a key part of the Affordable Care Act’s preventive health care coverage requirements on Friday, rejecting a challenge from Christian employers to the provision that affects some 150 million Americans.

The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama’s signature law, often referred to as Obamacare.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court’s majority. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.

The plaintiffs said the process is unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts tasked with recommending which services are covered is not Senate approved.

President Donald Trump’s administration defended the mandate before the court, though the Republican president has been a critic of his Democratic predecessor’s law. The Justice Department said board members don’t need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary.

Medications and services that could have been affected include statins to lower cholesterol, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs and medication to lower the chance of breast cancer for women.

Related Articles

Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books

Supreme Court OKs fee that subsidizes phone, internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas

Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear

Deal with Beijing will speed China’s export of minerals to the US, treasury secretary says

Canadian man held by immigration officials dies in South Florida federal facility, officials say

The case came before the Supreme Court after an appeals court struck down some preventive care coverage requirements. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Christian employers and Texas residents who argued they can’t be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings.

Well-known conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Trump before the high court in a dispute about whether he could appear on the 2024 ballot, argued the case.

The appeals court found that coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

A 2023 analysis prepared by the nonprofit KFF found that ruling would still allow full-coverage requirements for some services, including mammography and cervical cancer screening.

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the fee that is added to phone bills to provide billions of dollars a year in subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas.

The justices, by a 6-3 vote, reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the charge that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years.

At arguments in March, liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund, which has benefited tens of millions of Americans.

The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers.

A Virginia-based conservative advocacy group, Consumers’ Research, had challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumers’ Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation’s most conservative, ruled 9-7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional.

The 5th Circuit held that Congress had given too much authority to the FCC and the agency in turn had ceded too much power to a private entity, or administrator.

The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the nondelegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine.

Related Articles

Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books

Supreme Court preserves key part of Obamacare coverage requirements

Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear

Deal with Beijing will speed China’s export of minerals to the US, treasury secretary says

Canadian man held by immigration officials dies in South Florida federal facility, officials say

The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address “major questions,” in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to combat climate change.

But the phone fee case turned out not to be the right one for finding yet another way to restrict federal regulators.

President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, defended the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration.

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.