The Justice Department charged a man with committing an act causing death on a mass transportation system after he allegedly fatally stabbed a Ukrainian refugee on a North Carolina commuter train last month, meaning he could face the death penalty.

Officials announced the charge against 34-year-old Decarlos Brown Jr. on Tuesday, with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi stating, "he will never again see the light of day as a free man.

Brown was previously charged with first-degree murder by local authorities in Charlotte after he was accused of pulling out a knife and killing 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska on the city's light rail in an apparently random attack captured on video.

The incident, which took place on Aug. 22, gained national attention amid questions and concerns about why Brown was on the street despite 14 prior criminal cases.

According to the local NBC-affiliated station, WCNC, the Charlotte Area Regional Transit said that Brown did not have a ticket to ride the train, and there was also no security present in the car where the attack happened.

The case has become the latest flashpoint in the debate over whether cities such as Charlotte are adequately addressing violent crime, mental illness and transit safety.

Zarutska's obituary stated she was born in Kyiv, but she emigrated from Ukraine to the United States in 2022 with her mother, sister and brother to escape the war.

U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina Russ Ferguson became visibly emotional during a press conference on Tuesday announcing the federal charge in the case.

He said he had just spoken with Zarutska's family on the phone before the presser and learned they were living in a bomb shelter before coming to the U.S.

"She was coming home from work on a light rail train, like all of us do all the time, and she was brutally murdered," said Ferguson.

FBI Special Agent Jim Barnacle also spoke at the press conference, stating that Zarutska had built a life in Charlotte by making friends and getting a job on the first day she was permitted to do so.

"She worked at a senior citizen center. She worked at a pizza place. She took care of animals in the neighborhood," said Barnacle. "She was building her young life. She had recently moved in with her partner."

RELATED STORY | Video captures fatal stabbing of Ukrainian refugee on Charlotte light rail in North Carolina

On Friday, transit officials released surveillance video of the horrific crime, showing the two had no interaction before the stabbing occurred.

In the video, Zarutska appeared to board the train alone in her work uniform and sit in front of Brown with her back to him while she was looking down at her phone. Four minutes later, according to officials, Brown appears to pull out a pocket knife and toy with it in his hand before abruptly standing up and attacking her.

Ferguson said the video gave his office a basis for the federal charge. "No one should sit in fear when they sit on the light rail," he said.

According to The Associated Press, Brown had cycled through the criminal justice system for more than a decade, with 14 prior cases in Mecklenburg County, including serving five years for robbery with a dangerous weapon, according to court records. He was arrested earlier this year after repeatedly calling 911 from a hospital, claiming people were trying to control him. A judge released him without bail.

The Associated Press reported his mother told local television she sought an involuntary psychiatric commitment this year after he became violent at home. Doctors diagnosed him with schizophrenia.

Bondi said the killing was "a direct result of failed soft-on-crime policies that put criminals before innocent people."

President Donald Trump's administration violated federal law in the use of National Guard troops during Southern California immigration enforcement operations and accompanying protests, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco did not require the remaining troops to be withdrawn, however. He set his order to go into effect on Friday.

The order comes after California sued, saying the troops sent to Los Angeles over the summer were violating a law that prohibits military enforcement of domestic laws.

Lawyers for Trump's Republican administration have argued the Posse Comitatus Act doesn't apply because the troops were protecting federal officers, not enforcing laws. They say the troops were mobilized under an authority that allows the president to deploy them.

RELATED STORY | Marines, National Guard deployment to LA will cost $134 million, official says

The judge's decision comes as Trump has discussed National Guard deployments in Democratic-led cities like Chicago, Baltimore and New York. He has already deployed the guard as part of his unprecedented law enforcement takeover in Washington, where he has direct legal control.

Trump federalized members of the California National Guard and sent them to the second-largest U.S. city over the objections of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and city leaders. Trump did so under a law that allows the president to call the guard into federal service when the country "is invaded," when "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government," or when the president is otherwise unable "to execute the laws of the United States."

Roughly 4,000 National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines were deployed to Los Angeles in early June to deal with protests, over the objections of state and local officials. All were pulled back by the end of July, except about 250 National Guard troops.

Trump has pushed the bounds of typical military activity on domestic soil, including through the creation of militarized zones along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Newsom posted on X, in an all-caps reflection of the president's own social media style, "DONALD TRUMP LOSES AGAIN. The courts agree -- his militarization of our streets and use of the military against US citizens is ILLEGAL."

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Breyer's scathing ruling accused the Trump administration of "willfully" violating the law, saying it used troops for functions that were barred by their own training materials, refused to "meaningfully coordinate with state and local officials," and "coached" federal law enforcement agencies on the language to use when requesting assistance.

"These actions demonstrate that Defendants knew that they were ordering troops to execute domestic law beyond their usual authority," he wrote. "The evidence at trial established that Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles.

Breyer also noted the Trump administration's possible plans to call National Guard troops into other U.S. cities.

RELATED STORY | Pentagon ends deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles

In Los Angeles, National Guard members joined an operation at MacArthur Park in downtown Los Angeles intended as a show of force against people in the U.S. illegally and those protesting the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. They also accompanied federal immigration officers on raids at two state-licensed marijuana nurseries in Ventura County, Army Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman testified.

Sherman, who initially commanded the troops deployed to Los Angeles, testified during the second day of the trial that he raised concerns that the deployment could violate the Posse Comitatus Act.

He said soldiers were trained on the law and given materials that included a list of activities prohibited by the act, including doing security patrols and conducting traffic control, crowd control and riot control.

Sherman said that while the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits troops from carrying out those actions, he was told by his superiors that there was a "constitutional exception" that permitted such activities when the troops are protecting federal property or personnel.

A federal judge in Washington heard arguments Friday in a closely watched legal battle over President Donald Trumps attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook the first such case in the central banks 110-year history. The judge issued no immediate ruling.

Cook is seeking to block her removal and confirm her status as a member of the Feds governing board. Trump has accused her, without offering evidence, of committing mortgage fraud. She has never been charged with a crime. Her lawsuit argues that the allegations are a pretext for removing her because she has resisted Trumps push to lower interest rates.

Attorneys for Cook, led by Abbe Lowell, argued the president failed to provide proper legal notice, saying she learned of the attempt via social media posts rather than an official letter. They also contend that cause the legal threshold required to remove a Fed governor has not been met.

RELATED STORY | Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook sues Trump administration over attempt to fire her

Justice Department lawyers countered that social media postings from the president constituted proper notice and that Cook had sufficient time to respond. They also claimed Trumps decision is not reviewable by the courts, insisting the president has broad authority to remove Fed officials.

The hearing highlighted a central question: Does the president have unfettered discretion to decide what constitutes cause to fire a Federal Reserve governor, or are there legal limits to protect the central banks independence? Lowell suggested even trivial reasons such as disliking someones attire could be offered as a valid cause.

The case could set a major precedent for the political independence of the Fed and is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Past high court opinions have suggested the Federal Reserve might be among the few agencies shielded from presidential removal, though the question has never been tested.

Additional legal filings are expected next week, and the judge hinted she hopes to issue a decision within two weeks. Until then, Cooks job status at the Fed remains uncertain.

This story was initially reported by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the undocumented migrant who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador before being returned to the United States where he was charged with federal crimes, could be released from federal custody this week.

Judge Waverly Crenshaw is currently considering a motion which will determine the conditions under which Abrego Garcia could be released.

Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland with his wife, a U.S. citizen, and kids. Defense attorneys have asked the judge to give him 48 hours to report to pretrial supervision in Maryland. Attorneys explain if Abrego Garcia is released from custody in Tennessee, because he will no longer be in federal custody, he will need time to arrange for his travel from Tennessee to Maryland.

RELATED STORY | Judge delays Kilmar Abrego Garcia's release from jail over deportation concerns

Attorneys alerted the court that theyre in the process of obtaining private security to transport Abrego Garcia from Tennessee to Maryland. Theyre asking the court to keep details about his private security under seal, so that the public will not have access to the information.

Abrego Garcia's attorneys have also asked the judge to grant attorneys the ability to contact him both in person and over the phone, in the event hes taken into Immigrant and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody.

Judge Crenshaw will ultimately decide the terms of Abrego Garcias release, pending a trial date thats currently set for January 2026.

RELATED STORY | Abrego Garcia says he was subjected to psychological torture in El Salvador jail

Abrego Garcia was among more than 200 undocumented migrants who were deported to El Salvador in March. However, his circumstances were extraordinary because he had a standing court order which prohibited his return to El Salvador after he'd proven in court that he feared for his safety if he returned to his country of birth.

Once Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S., federal officials accused him of being involved in human trafficking, allegations that stemmed from a 2022 traffic stop. Even though he was not arrested or charged then, officials brought charges earlier this year.