The Minnesota Supreme Court has banned Woodbury attorney Kristi McNeilly from practicing law in the state, three years after she was convicted of theft by swindle for stealing $15,000 from a man who hired her to defend him in a drug case.

The high court’s opinion, rendered Wednesday, upheld a referee’s decision, which found that McNeilly “committed a criminal act that reflected negatively on her honesty and trustworthiness,” according to the opinion. “She stole $15,000 from a client by telling the client that the money was needed to bribe government officials to dismiss pending drug charges.”

The referee recommended McNeilly, who waived her right to an evidentiary hearing, be disbarred, and the court agreed.

“Misappropriation of client funds ‘is a breach of trust that reflects poorly on the entire legal profession and erodes the public’s confidence in lawyers,’” the opinion states.

She also was ordered to pay $900 in costs related to the case, the court’s opinion said.

McNeilly did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

McNeilly, a criminal defense attorney, was sentenced in Hennepin County District Court in 2022 to 180 days in the county workhouse after being convicted of theft-by-swindle two months prior. She also was ordered to pay back the $15,000 to her client.

She was hired in May 2018 to represent a 39-year-old Minnetonka man suspected of keeping illegal drugs in his home. The drugs were discovered during a search by the Southwest Hennepin Drug Taskforce, according to the criminal complaint. Although the man was a suspect, Her client was not immediately charged with a crime.

In November 2018, McNeilly told her client that she had spoken with the lead investigator and prosecuting attorney in his case, and that it could be resolved if her client made a payment of between $35,000 and $50,000 to a police union.

McNeilly’s client was able to collect only $15,000, which he handed over to McNeilly. Three days later, her client changed his mind and asked McNeilly for his money back, but McNeilly said she already forwarded it to the police union, according to the complaint.

After McNeilly’s client hired a new lawyer, police discovered that McNeilly had never been in contact with the lead investigator or the prosecutor, and that she spent a portion of her client’s money on mortgage and credit-card payments, the complaint said.

Related Articles

Charges: Woodbury HS student had replica gun in backpack, ran from school

Forest Lake ‘career offender’ gets 12½-year prison term for swindling businesses, homeowners

Report of student with gun at Woodbury HS leads to search, apprehension

‘Like having a bunch of nice friends’: Volunteer phone line for positive messages marks 30th year

Oakdale celebrates 50 years of Arbor Day tree giveaways

The director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action against McNeilly in connection with the case.

McNeilly, who was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 2004, had twice been previously disciplined by the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. She was publicly reprimanded and placed on probation for three years in 2015 and admonished in 2016, the opinion states.

By CHRISTOPHER RUGABER and PAUL WISEMAN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — After weeks of anticipation and speculation, President Donald Trump followed through on his reciprocal tariff threats by declaring on Wednesday a 10% baseline tax on imports from all countries and higher tariff rates on dozens of nations that run trade surpluses with the United States.

Related Articles

Democrats demoralized by Trump get a boost from Wisconsin voters and Cory Booker’s speech

Social Security’s acting leader faces calls to resign over decision to cut Maine contracts

US revokes visas of Mexican band members after cartel leader’s face was projected at a concert

Kennedy remains quiet on 10,000 jobs lost at the nation’s top health department

Law firms fear Trump orders could affect security clearances of lawyers who are military reservists

In announcing the reciprocal tariffs, Trump was fulfilling a key campaign promise by raising U.S. taxes on foreign goods to narrow the gap with the tariffs the White House says other countries unfairly impose on U.S. products.

“Reciprocal means ‘they do it to us and we do it to them,’” the president said from the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday.

Trump’s higher rates would hit foreign entities that sell more goods to the United States than they buy. But economists don’t share Trump’s enthusiasm for tariffs since they’re a tax on importers that usually get passed on to consumers. It’s possible, however, that the reciprocal tariffs could bring other countries to the table and get them to lower their own import taxes.

The Associated Press asked for your questions about reciprocal tariffs. Here are a few of them, along with our answers:

Do U.S.-collected tariffs go into the General Revenue Fund? Can Trump withdraw money from that fund without oversight?

Tariffs are taxes on imports, collected when foreign goods cross the U.S. border by the Customs and Border Protection agency. The money — about $80 billion last year — goes to the U.S. Treasury to help pay the federal government’s expenses. Congress has authority to say how the money will be spent.

Trump — largely supported by Republican lawmakers who control the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives — wants to use increased tariff revenue to finance tax cuts that analysts say would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Specifically, they want to extend tax cuts passed in Trump’s first term and largely set to expire at the end of 2025. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, has found that extending Trump’s tax cuts would reduce federal revenue by $4.5 trillion from 2025 to 2034.

Trump wants higher tariffs to help offset the lower tax collections. Another think tank, the Tax Policy Center, has said that extending the 2017 tax cuts would deliver continued tax relief to Americans at all income levels, “but higher-income households would receive a larger benefit.’’

How soon will prices rise as a result of the tariff policy?

It depends on how businesses both in the United States and overseas respond, but consumers could see overall prices rising within a month or two of tariffs being imposed. For some products, such as produce from Mexico, prices could rise much more quickly after the tariffs take effect.

Some U.S. retailers and other importers may eat part of the cost of the tariff, and overseas exporters may reduce their prices to offset the extra duties. But for many businesses, the tariffs Trump announced Wednesday — such as 20% on imports from Europe — will be too large to swallow on their own.

Companies may also use the tariffs as an excuse to raise prices. When Trump slapped duties on washing machines in 2018, studies later showed that retailers raised prices on both washers and dryers, even though there were no new duties on dryers.

A key question in the coming months is whether something similar will happen again. Economists worry that consumers, having just lived through the biggest inflationary spike in four decades, are more accustomed to rising prices than they were before the pandemic.

Yet there are also signs that Americans, put off by the rise in the cost of living, are less willing to accept price increases and will simply cut back on their purchases. That could discourage businesses from raising prices by much.

What is the limit of the executive branch’s power to implement tariffs? Does Congress not play any role?

The U.S. Constitution grants the power to set tariffs to Congress. But over the years, Congress has delegated those powers to the president through several different laws. Those laws specify the circumstances under which the White House can impose tariffs, which are typically limited to cases where imports threaten national security or are severely harming a specific industry.

In the past, presidents generally imposed tariffs only after carrying out public hearings to determine if certain imports met those criteria. Trump followed those steps when imposing tariffs in his first term.

In his second term, however, Trump has sought to use emergency powers set out in a 1977 law to impose tariffs in a more ad hoc fashion. Trump has said, for example, that fentanyl flowing in from Canada and Mexico constitute a national emergency and has used that pretext to impose 25% duties on goods from both countries.

Congress can seek to cancel an emergency that a president declares, and Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, has proposed to do just that regarding Canada. That legislation could pass the Senate but would likely die in the House. Other bills in Congress that would also limit the president’s authority to set tariffs face tough odds for passage as well.

What tariffs are other countries charging on US goods?

U.S. tariffs are generally lower than those charged by other countries. The average U.S. tariff, weighted to reflect goods that are actually traded, is just 2.2% for the United States, versus the European Union’s 2.7%, China’s 3% and India’s 12%, according to the World Trade Organization.

Other countries also tend to do more than the United States to protect their farmers with high tariffs. The U.S. trade-weighted tariff on farm goods, for example, is 4%, compared to the EU’s 8.4%, Japan’s 12.6%, China’s 13.1% and India’s 65%. (The WTO numbers don’t count Trump’s recent flurry of import taxes or tariffs between countries that have entered into their own free trade agreements, such as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that allows many goods to cross North American borders duty free.)

Previous U.S. administrations agreed to the tariffs that Trump now calls unjust. They were the result of a long negotiation between 1986 to 1994 — the so-called Uruguay Round — that ended in a trade pact signed by 123 countries and has formed the basis of the global trading system for nearly four decades.

By STEVE PEOPLES, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — For a day, at least, Democrats across the country have a sense that their comeback against President Donald Trump may have begun.

It wasn’t just about the election results in Wisconsin, where Democratic-backed Judge Susan Crawford won a 10-point victory against Trump and Elon Musk’s favored candidate for the state Supreme Court.

Some Democrats highlighted New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker’s marathon, record-setting 25-hour Senate speech as a rallying point for frustrated voters. Others pointed to congressional Democrats lining up with a handful of House Republican lawmakers to oppose a procedural rule that would have stopped a proposal for new parents in Congress to able to vote by proxy.

In this image provided by Senate Television, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. speaks on the Senate floor, Tuesday morning, April 1, 2025. (Senate Television via AP)

The series of victories gave Democratic leaders moments of relief and vindication of their strategy to focus on Trump’s alliances with Musk and other billionaires. That’s even as some party officials warned that it was far too early to draw sweeping conclusions from a series of lower-turnout off-year elections with polls still showing that the party’s brand is deeply unpopular among key groups of voters.

“Elon Musk and Donald Trump are on the ropes,” charged Ken Martin, the newly elected chair of the Democratic National Committee. “We’re just getting started.”

Wisconsin gave Democrats a much-needed win

Democrats have had little to cheer about in the five months since Trump won a decisive victory in November’s presidential election in which he peeled away a significant portion of working-class voters and people of color. And in more recent weeks, the party’s activist base has become increasingly frustrated that Democratic leaders have not done more to stop Trump’s unprecedented push to slash the federal government and the reshape the economy.

Democrats in Washington and in state capitals across the country privately conceded that a bad night, especially in Wisconsin, would have been devastating.

Supporters for Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford cheer during her election night party Tuesday, April 1, 2025, in Madison, Wis. (AP Photo/Kayla Wolf)

Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, lost to liberal-backed Crawford in a relative blowout, five months after Trump carried Wisconsin by less than 1 point.

And in Florida, Republicans won special elections in two of the most pro-Trump House districts in the country, but both candidates significantly underperformed Trump’s November margins.

“I went to bed last night feeling uplifted and relieved,” Kansas Democratic Party Chair Jeanna Repass said Wednesday.

Related Articles

Social Security’s acting leader faces calls to resign over decision to cut Maine contracts

US revokes visas of Mexican band members after cartel leader’s face was projected at a concert

Kennedy remains quiet on 10,000 jobs lost at the nation’s top health department

Law firms fear Trump orders could affect security clearances of lawyers who are military reservists

Once common, now unusual: Conservative candidate firmly concedes Wisconsin Supreme Court election

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., predicted further political consequences for Republicans if they don’t resist the sweeping cuts to government services enacted by Musk and Trump.

“In swing districts, if I was a Republican, I would either decide how to stand up for your constituents or find out how to get a discount on adult depends, because one or the other is what you’re going to be needing to do,” Pocan said.

Rebecca Cooke, a Democratic candidate in Wisconsin’s 3rd congressional district, said the election was a clear indication that voters are upset with how Trump and Musk “are messing with their lives.” But she stopped short of projecting confidence in future elections.

“We have work to do to build long term infrastructure in this party and to really build trust back with voters that I think have felt left behind by the Democratic Party,” said Cooke, a 37-year-old waitress who is running against GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden. “I think it takes time to build trust with voters, and it can’t happen overnight, and it can’t happen in just one election.”

Expect more Democratic talking points about Musk

In this week’s successes, Democratic officials believe they have confirmed the effectiveness of their core message heading into the 2026 midterms that Trump and his billionaire allies are working for the rich at the expense of the working class.

Indeed, talking points distributed by the Democratic National Committee on Wednesday reinforced that notion while pointing to what the committee described as “an undeniable trend” after recent lower-profile Democratic victories in Virginia, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Louisiana and Minnesota.

“In 2025, Democrats continue to overperform in special elections as voters send a resounding message: They want Democrats to fight for them, and they want the Trump-Musk agenda out of their communities,” the talking points read.

Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., told the AP Wednesday that the election results showed that the public is “outraged” by chaos and dysfunction coming from the Trump administration. The chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said Trump and Republicans in Congress are failing to fix high prices and seeking Medicaid cuts, in addition to supporting tariffs that could worsen inflation for families.

“What we saw yesterday in Florida and Wisconsin was Republicans running scared because the American people are angry and scared about the direction the Trump-Musk agenda is taking us,” she said. “They’re seeing prices go up. They’re seeing more and more the focus is not on them, but on Trump and his wealthy donors.”

More protests are to come

On Saturday, hundreds of thousands of voters are expected to attend more than 1,000 so-called “Hands Off!” related protests nationwide focused on Trump and Musk. More than 150 political groups worked together to organize what will almost certainly represent the single biggest day of protest of the second Trump administration.

The Washington event, which will feature Reps. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md., already has more than 12,000 RSVPs, according to organizers.

Meanwhile, Booker is planning to attend a series of unrelated public events, including a town hall in New Jersey this weekend.

His office reports receiving 28,000 voicemails since he finished his speech shortly after 8 p.m. on Tuesday. At its peak, the 25-hour address was being streamed by more than 300,000 people across Booker’s social media channels. It earned more than 350 million likes on his newly formed TikTok account.

A spokesperson said that the Democratic senator spent much of Wednesday sleeping.

Associated Press writers Josh Boak and Leah Askarinam in Washington and Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin contributed reporting.

A Woodbury High School student had a replica firearm that looked like a real gun in his backpack, according to charges filed Wednesday.

The student ran from the school, charges said, which led the high school and Royal Oaks Elementary to put additional security measures in place while a search for him was underway Monday afternoon. He was arrested Monday.

The Woodbury City Attorney’s Office charged the 18-year-old student Wednesday.

On Monday, after lunch, the teen was in another student’s vehicle in the school’s parking lot. There was discussion about fights with acquaintances and the 18-year-old said, “I would not fight him, I would just pop him. … Look at this,” and pulled a handgun from his backpack, according to the criminal complaint.

Just before 1:45 p.m., a Woodbury police school resource officer was told about the gun. The officer found the teen and asked if he had anything he shouldn’t. He “grew aggravated and walked away,” said he would “refuse the search” and left the school, the complaint said.

Witnesses reported seeing someone running from the school. “After an extensive search of the area,” police found the teen, the complaint said. He didn’t have a backpack or a firearm.

During a search, an officer found the bottom/handle of what appeared to be a firearm on Cypress Drive near Cochrane Drive. Officers continued searching and located the top portion and slide. It was determined to be a replica firearm.

The teen is charged with brandishing a replica firearm while on school property, a gross misdemeanor, and fleeing a peace officer, a misdemeanor.

Related Articles

3rd person pleads guilty in $120k attempt to bribe Feeding Our Future juror

19-year-old St. Paul man ID’d as victim of fatal stabbing in Dayton’s Bluff

Identical twin sister spared prison for trying to swap identity in fatal Amish buggy crash

Woman killed in White Bear Township hit-and-run ID’d

Forest Lake ‘career offender’ gets 12½-year prison term for swindling businesses, homeowners