This article has been corrected. 2 corrections — see Corrections at the end of this article.

Category: Trump administration — Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Role: “Acting Senior Litigation Counsel,” DOJ Civil Rights Division — the title in DOJ’s own signature blocks in Levy Armstrong from at least September 25, 2026, and the title he gave in open court on October 27, 2026; LEAD ATTORNEY of record, United States v. Levy Armstrong (D. Minn.) and United States v. Russell (S.D. Cal., entered after the verdict); attorney of record and brief co-signer (not denoted lead), United States v. Gendron (W.D.N.Y.); appointment type (political/Schedule C vs. career/term) not confirmed by any official DOJ source Subject classification: Public Official (non-elected DOJ litigation counsel), in scope for his conduct as counsel of record Priority: P2 (documented courtroom and docket conduct in two contested matters, including two personally-quoted courtroom appearances newly documented in this update; no personal court finding, sanction, or bar complaint against Hedley, and no source establishes he personally made the charging or grand-jury-presentation decisions in either matter)

Role

Neville S. Hedley appeared in open court on October 27, 2026, identifying himself to U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui as “the acting senior litigation counsel at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division” while announcing that a federal grand jury had declined to indict a defendant reporting later confirmed to be Cassidy Hutchinson, the former White House aide and January 6 congressional witness (source 1). Separately, CourtListener’s docket for United States v. Levy Armstrong, the “Cities Church” prosecution in the District of Minnesota, lists Hedley as a LEAD ATTORNEY for the DOJ Civil Rights Division (source 9).

The title is DOJ’s own, not only his courtroom self-description. The government’s September 25, 2026 notice of withdrawal in Levy Armstrong lists “NEVILLE HEDLEY, Acting Senior Litigation Counsel” in its signature block (source 38), and on October 16, 2026 he personally signed the government’s response opposing the defendants’ joint motion for a bill of particulars as “/s/ Neville S. Hedley … Acting Senior Litigation Counsel,” Civil Rights Division, with a usdoj.gov address (Doc. 889, source 37). Earlier filings show a different title: in United States v. Gendron he signed government briefs on June 17 and July 20, 2026 as “Trial Attorney, Civil Rights Division” (sources 40, 41). On the filings reviewed, the “acting” senior title dates from between late July and late September 2026. His earliest DOJ-era court appearance found for this update is a notice of appearance in Gendron filed April 15, 2026 (source 39). No official DOJ record found says whether his position is a Schedule C political appointment, a career Civil Rights Division post, or a term position. [NEEDS VERIFICATION — appointment type only]

Background

A LinkedIn profile under the name “Neville ‘Ned’ Hedley” — self-reported, not an official DOJ source — lists “Senior Trial Attorney at Civil Rights Division” beginning March 2026, immediately following roughly five years (September 2021-October 2025) at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute (HLLI), a conservative/libertarian-aligned public-interest litigation shop that houses the Center for Class Action Fairness (source 2). Court records are consistent with a spring 2026 start: his first DOJ-era notice of appearance found for this update was filed April 15, 2026 in Gendron (source 39). They do not fix the exact start date. The March 2026 start date is self-reported. Whether his DOJ appointment is political, career, or term is unconfirmed by any official DOJ source. [NEEDS VERIFICATION — exact start date and appointment type]

An archived Federalist Society biography (self-submitted, per the Federalist Society’s own disclaimer that it “does not edit or otherwise endorse” submitted bios; retrieved via Wayback Machine after the live page returned a bot-wall) states that Hedley worked for two major banks as in-house counsel and a risk/compliance manager, and earlier “worked as a federal criminal prosecutor, first as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in San Diego, California and later as a Trial Attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division,” and that he served as “Senior Trial Attorney for the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission in Chicago working on civil enforcement actions of the Commodity Exchange Act.” It states he began his legal career as a tax attorney at Mayer Brown in Chicago, served as a U.S. Navy Reserve intelligence officer and counterterrorism analyst, and lists a B.A. in Economics and History from Wake Forest University, a J.D. from New England Law School, an LL.M. in Tax Law from NYU School of Law, and an M.B.A. from Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management (source 3). The bio gives no dates; official records now date three of its claims (below).

His HLLI tenure itself, by contrast, is corroborated by court filings. A 2022 class-action objector filing lists his address as “Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute / Center for Class Action Fairness” (source 4). He appeared as co-counsel with HLLI President Anna St. John and Ted Frank in Manhart v. AJP Education Foundation, terminated from that docket September 25, 2025 — consistent with his reported HLLI departure (source 5). He signed a 2024 amicus brief in Texas Top Cop Shop v. Blanche on HLLI’s behalf (source 6), and a docket entry shows him withdrawing from that case around the same September 2025 date (source 6). He co-signed a 2022 HLLI comment letter to the SEC opposing a proposed climate-disclosure rule (source 7). This HLLI-to-DOJ trajectory — roughly five years at a conservative/libertarian public-interest litigation shop immediately preceding an “acting” senior DOJ litigation post — is consistent with, but does not on its own establish, a lateral political appointment; no official appointment record was found confirming that characterization either way.

Four claims in the self-submitted Federalist Society bio are corroborated by official records.

Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Diego. The Ninth Circuit’s published opinion in United States v. Jenkins, 504 F.3d 694 (9th Cir. 2007), No. 06-50049, an appeal from the Southern District of California argued February 15, 2007, lists “Bruce R. Castetter, Neville S. Hedley, Assistant United States Attorneys, San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant” (source 34). A CourtListener opinion search returns further Ninth Circuit decisions from 2005 through 2008 in appeals from the Southern District of California that name him. Only the Jenkins counsel line was read for this update.

CFTC enforcement. CFTC Release No. 5608-09 (February 5, 2009), announcing a Ponzi-scheme enforcement action against Charles E. Hays and Crossfire Trading, LLC in the District of Minnesota, names “Neville Hedley” among the “CFTC Division of Enforcement staff … responsible for this case” (source 35). The release does not state his title or office location, so the bio’s “Senior Trial Attorney … in Chicago” detail remains uncorroborated.

J.D., New England Law. The State Bar of California’s licensee record for “Neville Spencer Hedley,” No. 241022, lists his law school as “New England SOL; Boston MA,” and shows him admitted December 21, 2005, inactive from February 2, 2009, and active again from May 1, 2023, with no discipline or administrative action reported (source 36). The 2005 admission fits the San Diego AUSA years, and the 2009 move to inactive status fits the CFTC release that month.

The records also correct the order of his federal jobs. The bio’s sentence can be read as AUSA, then Antitrust Division, then CFTC. The documents place the CFTC role (February 2009) before the Antitrust Division role (July 2012, below).

Antitrust Division. A July 18, 2012 plea agreement filed by the DOJ Antitrust Division in United States v. Alexander W. Wright, part of the Division’s municipal-bond-derivatives bid-rigging docket, is signed “NEVILLE S. HEDLEY, JENNIFER M. DIXTON, Attorneys, Department of Justice Antitrust Division, 209 South LaSalle Street, Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604,” listed as “Counsel for the United States” (source 25; DOJ’s case page for the matter independently confirms the Antitrust Division’s Chicago field office handled it, source 26). This corroborates the bio’s claim that he worked “as a Trial Attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division.”

The bio’s remaining pre-HLLI claims are still uncorroborated by any document found: the Mayer Brown tax practice, the two bank in-house roles and the life-sciences compliance role, the Navy Reserve service, the B.A., LL.M. and M.B.A., and the CFTC title and Chicago location. [NEEDS VERIFICATION]

Basis for Inclusion Subject classification: Public Official — Hedley identified himself in open federal court as “acting senior litigation counsel” for DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and is listed as LEAD ATTORNEY of record on the Civil Rights Division’s side of an active federal criminal docket. His appointment type (political, career or term) is not confirmed by any official source. Citizen Analyst’s editor ruled on November 4, 2026 that a Justice Department attorney who appears as counsel of record, in their official capacity, in a matter a profile covers is in scope as a public official for that conduct, and that the profile must cite the docket and stay within that conduct; that ruling, not his appointment type, is the basis here. Basis: Official courtroom conduct announcing the Hutchinson grand-jury no-bill to a federal magistrate judge, and official docket-of-record status as lead DOJ counsel in United States v. Levy Armstrong — the first criminal prosecution under the FACE Act’s religious-worship provision, which produced a magistrate’s refusal to sign arrest warrants, a Chief District Judge’s public rebuke of DOJ’s conduct, and a failed DOJ mandamus petition to the Eighth Circuit. Evidence basis: Courtroom statement before U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui, October 27, 2026 (source 1); United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025 (D. Minn.), docket and parties record (sources 9, 10). What is NOT the basis for inclusion: Hedley’s political affiliation, any personal political opinions, his prior private-sector legal and compliance career (Wells Fargo, Northern Trust), and his prior public-interest litigation work at HLLI are NOT, on their own, the basis for inclusion. Being counsel of record in a case a court criticizes is not, by itself, misconduct, and this profile does not characterize it as such. Protected speech documented in this profile: Statements Hedley made in court as the government’s advocate — including his self-identification as “acting senior litigation counsel” and his relay of the grand jury’s non-concurrence — are documented as official courtroom conduct, not personal political speech, and are reported for factual and historical context.

Democratic Malice Assessment

Designation: None

Hedley’s documented conduct in both matters is official courtroom and docket-of-record activity: appearing before a magistrate judge to announce a grand jury’s decision, and serving as lead DOJ counsel on an indictment and subsequent litigation. The Democratic Malice Assessment framework evaluates subversion of democratic mechanisms by those who direct policy, choose targets, or design unlawful process — it does not score an attorney’s performance of an assigned courtroom role. No source in this draft places Hedley in the decision chain that chose to route the Hutchinson matter to the Civil Rights Division rather than the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, that decided to seek an indictment of Hutchinson, that decided to bring the first-ever FACE Act religious-worship prosecution in Levy Armstrong, or that directed U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen’s call demanding review of the magistrate’s warrant refusal. Those decisions are attributed in reporting to Civil Rights Division leadership (Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, per sources 11, 12) and to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, not to Hedley individually. Applying the five-factor test to Hedley’s own documented conduct: process subversion is not established as to him personally (he is not reported as the author of the warrant-review demand or the mandamus filing); targeted asymmetry, nonpartisan expert rejection, pattern context, and accountability avoidance are likewise not documented as to him individually, as distinct from the Department or the U.S. Attorney’s Office. No action is scored.

This update adds two instances of Hedley personally appearing and arguing in court (Action 2, July 22 and July 24, 2026 hearings) that were not previously documented. Both are advocacy defending positions and representations already attributed above to the Department, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, or DOJ investigators — not independent decisions of Hedley’s own to open an investigation, select a venue, seek a warrant, or file a disclosure request — and do not change this assessment.

Framework note: The Democratic Malice Assessment evaluates subversion of democratic mechanisms themselves, not policy disagreement, and is not a vehicle for scoring an attorney’s performance of an assigned professional role. Characterizations of the Civil Rights Division’s conduct in these matters as “weaponized,” a “political football,” or constitutionally flawed are reported in this profile as the characterizations of named parties, judges, or commentators — not adopted as findings.

Documented Actions

1. Announced the grand jury’s no-bill in the Cassidy Hutchinson investigation (October 27, 2026)

Evidence: In a brief courtroom appearance on October 27, 2026, Hedley — who “introduced himself as the acting senior litigation counsel at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division” — told U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui that a federal grand jury “had not concurred on the proposed indictment.” He did not name the defendant; people familiar with the matter told the Washington Post it was Cassidy Hutchinson (source 1). CNBC, citing the Washington Post and “MS NOW,” reported that “prosecutors in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division sought to charge Hutchinson with a crime based on claims she made false statements” (source 13). CBS News reported that DOJ had not responded to a request for comment as of the evening of October 27 (source 14).

The investigation had been reported since October 8, 2026, when Punchbowl News, CBS News, and the Guardian each reported that Civil Rights Division prosecutors — not the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, which multiple outlets said would typically handle a false-statements-to-Congress matter — were presenting evidence to a grand jury in Washington, D.C. (sources 15, 16). The Guardian reported that an April 2026 New York Times article had described Civil Rights Division prosecutors as “tapped to investigate Hutchinson,” calling the venue choice “a highly unusual move” (source 16). Reps. Jim Jordan and Barry Loudermilk referred Hutchinson to DOJ in March 2026, alleging false testimony to the January 6 Select Committee (source 17). The Civil Rights Division’s investigation was reported to be overseen by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon (sources 11, 12).

SourceWashington Post (Perry Stein, Salvador Rizzo, Jeremy Roebuck), “Grand jury declines to indict Cassidy Hutchinson over Jan. 6 testimony,” October 27, 2026, quoted via Election Law Blog (source 1).Whether Hedley personally presented evidence to the grand jury, or personally made or participated in the decision to seek an indictment, is not established by any source reviewed for this draft. Every account places him only at the post-no-bill courtroom appearance, relaying the grand jury’s non-concurrence to Judge Faruqui. No source identifies who conducted the grand-jury presentation in October, and no DOJ statement about the no-bill or any plan to re-present to a new grand jury was found as of October 28, 2026.

Pattern: A Civil Rights Division attorney announcing, in open court, the failure of an unusual-venue effort to indict a cooperating January 6 witness, without any source establishing his role in the decision to seek the indictment.

2. Lead DOJ counsel in the first-ever FACE Act religious-worship prosecution, United States v. Levy Armstrong (filed January 29, 2026 — pending)

Evidence: Hedley is listed as a LEAD ATTORNEY for the DOJ Civil Rights Division on the docket of United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025 (D. Minn.), alongside Orlando Sonza and John Rodrigo Arboleda (source 9). The original indictment, unsealed January 30, 2026, charged nine defendants — including Minneapolis civil-rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong and two journalists, Don Lemon and Georgia Fort — with one count each under 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2) (the FACE Act’s religious-worship provision) and 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy against rights), arising from a January 18, 2026 protest at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, after it became known that a pastor there was also ICE’s Acting Field Director for Minnesota (source 10). This is reported as the first-ever criminal prosecution under the FACE Act’s religious-worship provision; an advocacy source (Red Line for Civil Rights, a Democracy Forward Foundation project, whose characterizations are flagged here as advocacy rather than neutral reporting) states the Division “has historically not prosecuted cases under the religious-worship provision due to concerns about its constitutionality,” and CBS News independently reported that “some former Civil Rights Division lawyers say the charge is constitutionally flawed and has never before been used to prosecute interference in a house of worship” (source 18).

On February 27, 2026, DOJ unsealed a superseding indictment charging 30 additional people in connection with the same protest, bringing the total to 39 defendants; Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement on X that 25 of the 30 had already been arrested, “with more to come.” The superseding indictment added no new charges: all 39 defendants face the same two counts, now reported with more precision as a misdemeanor FACE Act count and a felony § 241 conspiracy count. Former DOJ civil-rights attorneys told CBS News they saw weakness in the case and predicted it could be dismissed, because the FACE Act’s house-of-worship provision — unlike its reproductive-health-clinic application — does not plainly reach interference by private individuals rather than government action (source 27). Red Line for Civil Rights separately noted that an AI-altered image was circulated by the White House in connection with the case, and that Department leadership had limited FACE Act enforcement in “abortion-related” matters to cases with “significant aggravating factors” the same month it invoked the Act’s house-of-worship provision against nonviolent protesters (source 19).

Before any indictment, Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko refused to sign arrest-warrant complaints against several defendants, including Lemon, Lemon’s producer, and Fort, for lack of probable cause (sources 18, 33). Minnesota’s U.S. Attorney, Daniel Rosen, personally called the court to demand the refusal be reviewed by a district judge — a demand Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz called “unheard of in our district.” DOJ told Schiltz the warrants presented a national-security emergency and that he “must accept their national security concerns as true ‘because they said it, and they are the government.'” Schiltz rejected this, writing that “[n]one committed any acts of violence. … There is absolutely no emergency” (source 18). DOJ then sought a writ of mandamus from the Eighth Circuit to compel the warrants’ signature; the Eighth Circuit declined, though one panel judge said he personally believed probable cause existed (source 18). Only after the failed mandamus effort did DOJ obtain the grand jury indictment (source 19).

At the February 13, 2026 arraignment, the government’s table was staffed by Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert J. Keenan and counsel Orlando Sonza — not reported as including Hedley by name at that specific hearing, though he remains lead counsel of record on the docket overall (source 20). Defense counsel Abbe Lowell told the court: “To date, everything in this case has been irregular; we can assume the grand jury proceedings were too.” (source 20). Three government attorneys left the docket in August-September 2026. Kristian Weir filed a notice of appearance on August 12, 2026 and a notice of withdrawal a week later, on August 19 (Docs. 619, 632, source 44). Megan Frederick and Greta A. Gieseke were removed by a one-page notice of withdrawal filed September 25, 2026 by Civil Rights Division attorney Kelsey E. McGee; its signature block lists Hedley as “Acting Senior Litigation Counsel” (Doc. 827, source 38). The Frederick/Gieseke notice states no reason. Weir’s docket entry states none either, and the document itself is not in RECAP. No reporting reviewed explains the departures, and this profile draws no inference about the reason. [NEEDS VERIFICATION — reason for the withdrawals]

Unlike the February hearing, Hedley was personally named and quoted at two later hearings before Magistrate Judge Micko, newly documented in this update. At a July 22, 2026 hearing, Hedley argued for stricter pretrial release conditions against defendant Ian Davis Austin, an Army veteran facing a separate pending disorderly-conduct charge from protests at a New Jersey immigration-detention facility; he told Micko “[w]e now have presented material evidence that the conditions of release are no longer adequate” and “[t]he current conditions of release don’t address public safety,” and submitted body-camera footage he said showed Austin’s “inability to disengage” at a busy intersection — footage that was not itself played in court and that drew laughter from the courtroom gallery. Micko granted most of the government’s request, restricting Austin’s travel and ordering a mental-health evaluation. Austin and co-defendant William Kelly said they saw Hedley and Keenan “smirking” as they left the courtroom; Kelly told reporters “History will remember you as fascists” — a defendant’s characterization, reported here as such and not adopted as a finding (source 28).

At a July 24, 2026 hearing on journalist Georgia Fort’s motion to compel grand-jury materials, Hedley personally defended the government against allegations — later detailed in Fort’s August 6, 2026 dismissal motions — that investigators had given federal courts false information in search-warrant applications and may have misled the grand jury that indicted her. Hedley told Micko: “These are not material falsehoods. They’re accurate statements. They don’t like the characterization of them. That’s an argument for the jury.” Micko ordered prosecutors to turn over all grand-jury proceedings related to Fort and fellow journalist Michael Beute. Fort’s subsequent filings documented that DOJ had conceded as false an HSI investigator’s sworn claim that she was chanting with protesters when she entered the church; that a separate warrant application falsely claimed a congregant’s arm was broken during the protest; that prosecutors had charged, then dismissed, a bystander with no connection to the protest; and that after a judge twice rejected government attempts to obtain Fort’s journalistic work product and social-media subscriber data — without the government disclosing the Privacy Protection Act to the court — investigators sought the same information through a customs administrative process instead. No source reviewed for this draft places Hedley personally among the officials who made these specific misstatements or filed the customs request; this profile documents the allegations he personally defended in court, not conduct he is reported to have personally committed. DOJ had offered 29 of the 39 charged defendants a misdemeanor plea; as of early August 2026, none had accepted (source 29).

From September into November 2026 the docket shows Hedley carrying the government’s written motions practice. Seven government filings went in through his own ECF account between September 9 and October 23, 2026 (Docs. 802, 814, 816, 817, 854, 889, 928, sources 37, 47). They include oppositions to a motion to return or impound call and text logs, to Don Lemon’s motion to suppress the search of his iPhone and request for a Franks hearing, and to motions to dismiss, suppress, or compel disclosure over the government’s use of a 19 U.S.C. § 1509 customs summons. They also include the October 12 response to motions to compel discovery and to dismiss for government misconduct, and the October 23 joint status report on the pretrial hearing schedule. On October 16, 2026, the case remained in active motions practice. That day the government filed a consolidated opposition to multiple motions to dismiss for failure to state an offense, among them a motion to dismiss under the First Amendment (Doc. 909). It went in through Keenan’s ECF account, and its text is not in RECAP (source 45). Whether Hedley co-signed Doc. 909 remains unconfirmed. [NEEDS VERIFICATION] The same day, Hedley personally signed the government’s opposition to the defendants’ joint motion for a bill of particulars (Doc. 889, source 37). It argues that Rule 7 “does not require the government draft a pretrial narrative of how it will prove its case.” Rosen, Dhillon and Keenan appear above his name in the signature block.

On November 3, 2026, Magistrate Judge Micko opened the pretrial motions hearing. On day one he heard argument on the joint motions to dismiss for failure to state an offense, to dismiss Count One, to dismiss on First Amendment grounds, and to dismiss for selective or vindictive prosecution, plus a joint motion to sever. The court’s minute entry lists Hedley among seven government attorneys appearing, with Keenan, Joshua Zuckerman, Manpreet Uppal, Lynae Tucker, John Arboleda and Flavio DeAbreu (Doc. 937, source 46). The minute entry does not say which government attorney argued which motion.

This case is reported to connect to a separate DOJ-vs-judiciary conflict: on September 30, 2026, DOJ filed a judicial-misconduct complaint against Chief Judge Schiltz, Judge John Tunheim, and other District of Minnesota judges, after a New York Times article in which Schiltz and six other Minnesota federal judges discussed “last winter’s tumult.” Attorney General Todd Blanche said the judges’ comments to the Times were “a clear violation of their ethical duties”; Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter said the complaint alleged the judges “used their official judicial office to pander to the press about immigration policies” (source 21). Hedley is not named in that press release, but Schiltz is the same judge who handled the arrest-warrant dispute in Hedley’s case, and the complaint explicitly concerns judicial commentary on enforcement operations of which the Cities Church prosecution is reported to be a part.

SourceCBS News (Sarah N. Lynch), “Appeals court declines to order lower court to sign arrest warrants against Don Lemon, others in church protest,” updated January 24, 2026 (source 18); Lawfare (Peyton Baker), “Cities Church Arraignment Signals Early Battles Over FACE Act and § 241,” February 15, 2026 (source 20); CBS News (Sarah N. Lynch), “DOJ charging 30 more people for roles in anti-ICE protest at Minnesota church,” updated February 27, 2026 (source 27); the Guardian (Clint Combs), “Judge restricts travel of ICE protester charged with disrupting Minnesota church service,” July 25, 2026 (source 28); the Guardian (Sam Levine, Rachel Leingang), “US law enforcement gave false information in case against woman charged in anti-ICE protest,” August 6, 2026 (source 29); Minnesota Reformer, “Journalist Georgia Fort … seeks dismissal of federal charges,” August 6, 2026 (source 33); D. Minn. Docs. 619, 632, 827, 889, 909, 937 and Hedley’s ECF filings (sources 37, 38, 44-47).Court record: United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025 (D. Minn.), filed January 29, 2026, superseded February 27, 2026 to add 30 defendants (39 total), assigned to Judge Laura M. Provinzino, referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko — pending. CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72213271/united-states-v-levy-armstrong

Pattern: DOJ’s Civil Rights Division pursuing a first-of-its-kind constitutional theory against protesters including two journalists and a civil-rights attorney, expanded by superseding indictment from 9 to 39 defendants, over a magistrate judge’s probable-cause refusal, documented allegations that investigators gave courts false information, and a Chief District Judge’s public objection — with Hedley as lead counsel of record throughout, personally arguing the government’s position at two reported hearings, and filing or signing the government’s written oppositions to the defendants’ suppression, disclosure, and misconduct motions.

3. Attorney of record, DOJ Civil Rights Division, in the federal capital prosecution of the Buffalo mass shooter, United States v. Gendron (W.D.N.Y., filed July 14, 2022 — pending)

Evidence: CourtListener’s docket for United States v. Gendron, No. 1:22-cr-00109 (W.D.N.Y.), lists Hedley as an attorney of record (“ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED,” not the “LEAD ATTORNEY” designation he carries on the Levy Armstrong and Russell dockets) for the DOJ Civil Rights Division, alongside DOJ Trial Attorney Michael S. Warbel (listed as LEAD ATTORNEY), Civil Rights Division attorney Sanjay H. Patel, and Buffalo AUSA Pierre Richard Antoine (source 30). The case charges Payton Gendron, who killed ten Black people and wounded three others in a racially motivated mass shooting at a Tops supermarket in Buffalo on May 14, 2022, with 27 federal counts, including ten counts of hate crime resulting in death — one per victim — plus firearms charges. Gendron separately pleaded guilty to state murder and domestic-terrorism charges in a 2023 state trial and is serving life without parole on those counts; DOJ is pursuing the death penalty on the federal charges. Jury selection in the federal trial began October 13, 2026, with the trial reported as ongoing into November 2026 (sources 31, 32).

Docket appearance records from hearings held in 2024 and 2025 and reviewed for this draft name the government’s courtroom team as AUSA Joseph Tripi, AUSA Brett Harvey, AUSA Caitlin Higgins (later joined by AUSA Maeve Huggins and AUSA Charles Kruly), DOJ Trial Attorney Michael Warbel, and Civil Rights Division attorneys Brant Levine, Daniel Grunert, and Sanjay Patel — none name Hedley, because he had not yet joined the case. He filed a notice of appearance for the United States on April 15, 2026 (Doc. 573, source 39). The official transcript of the April 22, 2026 status conference before Judge Vilardo lists “NEVILLE S. HEDLEY, ESQ., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Criminal Section” among counsel for the government (Doc. 593, source 43). He signed, as “Trial Attorney, Civil Rights Division,” the government’s Omnibus Penalty Phase Motion in Limine (Doc. 597, filed June 17, 2026, source 40). He also signed the government’s Combined Guilt Phase Pretrial Memorandum and Motions in Limine, dated June 17, 2026 and filed in redacted form July 16 (Doc. 626, source 42), and the July 20, 2026 joint proposed jury-selection procedures (Doc. 637, source 41). Each brief names him “of counsel” alongside the W.D.N.Y. AUSAs and Trial Attorney Michael S. Warbel. He is an active member of the trial team, not just a name on the roster. Whether he has personally examined witnesses or argued before the jury since jury selection began on October 13, 2026 is not established by any source reviewed. [NEEDS VERIFICATION] Unlike Actions 1 and 2, no source reviewed for this draft reports any irregularity, judicial rebuke, or unusual procedural step in the Gendron prosecution. It was initiated in July 2022, under the prior administration, and proceeds on a legal theory — federal hate-crimes and firearms charges following a racially motivated mass killing — squarely within the Civil Rights Division’s traditional criminal function.

SourceCourtListener docket and parties record (source 30); W.D.N.Y. Docs. 573, 593, 597, 626, 637 (sources 39-43); CNN, “Jury selection to begin in federal hate crimes trial over Buffalo supermarket shooting,” October 13, 2026 (source 31); Spectrum News 1 (Dana Damiani), “Jury selection in Gendron federal trial to begin Tuesday,” October 12, 2026 (source 32).Court record: United States v. Gendron, No. 1:22-cr-00109 (W.D.N.Y.), filed July 14, 2022, assigned to Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo — pending. CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63593107/united-states-v-gendron

Pattern: None asserted, as with Action 4 below (Russell). Hedley is a working member of the trial team in a legitimate, high-profile, originally bipartisan-administration hate-crimes prosecution; this profile draws no connection between this case and the pattern documented in Actions 1 and 2.

4. Ordinary Civil Rights Division criminal caseload: United States v. Russell (S.D. Cal.)

Evidence: CourtListener lists Hedley on the docket of United States v. Russell, No. 3:24-cr-01015 (S.D. Cal.), filed May 16, 2024 and terminated June 12, 2026, before Judge Todd Wallace Robinson. The docket’s charge table shows counts under 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence), with a sentence of 24 months on the first count and 120 months on the second, to run consecutively, for a total of 144 months (source 22). The defendant is Aaron Russell, a former San Diego County sheriff’s deputy. On May 1, 2020 he fatally shot Nicholas Bils, 36, an unarmed detainee who had slipped out of his handcuffs and was running from a California State Parks officer’s car outside the San Diego Central Jail. According to prosecutors, Russell was the only one of four officers at the scene to draw a firearm (sources 49, 50). He pleaded guilty in state court to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced in 2022 to one year in jail plus probation; San Diego County paid Bils’s family $8.1 million to settle a wrongful-death suit (source 49). His first federal trial ended with a deadlocked jury. A second jury convicted him on March 3, 2026 of deprivation of rights under color of law and of using and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence (source 49). On Friday, May 29, 2026, he was sentenced to 12 years, matching the docket’s 144-month total (source 50).

Hedley came into this case late. His notice of appearance was filed May 27, 2026, after the verdict and two days before sentencing (Doc. 186, source 48). The Times of San Diego reports that Assistant U.S. Attorney C. Seth Askins argued for the government at sentencing (source 50). No source reviewed places Hedley at either trial or at the sentencing hearing.

A § 242 color-of-law prosecution is a conventional type of Civil Rights Division criminal case, typically brought against law enforcement or other government actors who use force to violate someone’s civil rights. Nothing in the record reviewed suggests any selective- or political-prosecution dimension to this case. The indictment predates the current administration, and the case is documented here as part of Hedley’s ordinary Civil Rights Division criminal-section caseload, not as an example of the pattern in Actions 1 and 2.

SourceCourtListener docket (sources 22, 48); NBC 7 San Diego (City News Service), March 3, 2026 (source 49); Times of San Diego (City News Service), May 30, 2026 (source 50).Court record: United States v. Russell, No. 3:24-cr-01015 (S.D. Cal.), filed May 16, 2024, terminated June 12, 2026, assigned to Judge Todd Wallace Robinson. CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68541944/united-states-v-russell

Pattern: None asserted. Ordinary, non-controversial Civil Rights Division criminal enforcement, documented here for context, not as evidence of accountability-relevant conduct.

Pattern Analysis

Cross-References

Hedley’s two politically salient matters share a structural feature: in each, Civil Rights Division leadership and other DOJ officials are reported to have made the venue, charging, and litigation-strategy decisions a court or commentator found unusual or irregular, while Hedley appears in the courtroom or on the docket as the Division’s attorney of record — and, as newly documented in this update’s Action 2, personally argues the government’s position when a hearing requires it. No source places him in either decision chain. His documented ordinary caseload (the Gendron and Russell prosecutions) is unremarkable — in Gendron‘s case, extraordinarily high-profile — Civil Rights Division work and is not part of that pattern. Being counsel of record in a matter a court criticizes is not, on its own, misconduct; this profile documents his role precisely as the record shows it — a courtroom and docket presence who personally advocates for positions attributed above to others, not a decision-maker — and does not assert otherwise.

Related profiles:

• cassidy-hutchinson-profile (subject of the no-bill Hedley announced in court)
• john-borchert-profile (USAO-DC career AUSA wrongly linked to the Hutchinson matter on social media; the research that corrected that record identified Hedley as the attorney who actually appeared)
• harmeet-dhillon-profile (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, reported to have overseen both the Hutchinson investigation and the Division’s broader enforcement posture)

Related skills:

• malice-evaluator (Democratic Malice Assessment framework applied above; no designation)
• public-records-research-specialist

Severity Assessment

Immediate harm: Low to Moderate — a federal grand jury declined to indict Hutchinson, and the Cities Church prosecution (now a 39-defendant superseding indictment) has produced a magistrate’s warrant refusal, documented allegations that investigators gave courts false information, and a failed mandamus bid, but no court has found Hedley personally responsible for any charging, warrant, or disclosure decision, and no personal sanction exists against him. His documented personal courtroom conduct is advocacy defending the government’s existing positions, not authorship of the contested decisions. Democratic erosion: Moderate — an unusual-venue effort to prosecute a cooperating congressional witness, and a first-of-its-kind constitutional theory pursued over a Chief District Judge’s public objection, each reported as part of a broader pattern of DOJ action against perceived critics of the administration; that characterization is attributed to named reporters, judges, and commentators, not independently adopted here. Authoritarian marker: Not established as to Hedley individually. He is the courtroom- and docket-facing Civil Rights Division attorney in two matters whose venue and charging decisions are reported as having been made by Division leadership and other DOJ officials above him.

Accountability Status

Current status: Active (serving as Acting Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ Civil Rights Division, the title in DOJ’s signature blocks in Levy Armstrong, sources 37, 38; whether this is a political/Schedule C, career, or term appointment is not confirmed by any official DOJ source) [NEEDS VERIFICATION — appointment type]

Legal exposure:

• No criminal charge, civil suit, sanction, or bar/disciplinary proceeding against Hedley personally was found as of October 28, 2026. Serving as counsel of record in a prosecution a court or commentator criticizes is not, by itself, misconduct, and this profile makes no such claim.
• Fed. R. Crim. P. 48 and the courts’ supervisory authority over charging and warrant practice — the basis for Magistrate Judge Micko’s warrant refusal and Chief Judge Schiltz’s objections in Levy Armstrong; those findings run against DOJ’s and the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s conduct, not against Hedley individually.
• Applicable Rules of Professional Conduct governing a prosecutor’s special responsibilities (e.g., Rule 3.8) are generally applicable to any AUSA or DOJ trial attorney’s charging and trial conduct; no complaint against Hedley under any such rule was found.

Congressional oversight:

• House Judiciary Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee — general jurisdiction over DOJ prosecutorial practice and the Civil Rights Division’s enforcement choices; no committee correspondence naming Hedley individually was found.
• Congressional oversight of the Civil Rights Division’s venue selection in the Hutchinson matter, and of the Division’s first-ever use of the FACE Act’s religious-worship provision in Levy Armstrong, is ongoing reporting context rather than a Hedley-specific inquiry.

Public accountability:

• United States v. Levy Armstrong (D. Minn., No. 0:26-cr-00025) — pending; superseded February 27, 2026 to 39 total defendants; in active motions practice as of October 16, 2026.
• United States v. Gendron (W.D.N.Y., No. 1:22-cr-00109) — pending; capital federal hate-crimes trial, jury selection began October 13, 2026; ordinary (though exceptionally high-profile) caseload, not part of the selective-prosecution pattern.
• United States v. Russell (S.D. Cal., No. 3:24-cr-01015) — terminated June 12, 2026, after former sheriff’s deputy Aaron Russell’s conviction and 12-year sentence; Hedley entered post-verdict; ordinary caseload, not part of the selective-prosecution pattern.
• DOJ’s September 30, 2026 judicial-misconduct complaint against District of Minnesota judges (Judicial Council of the Eighth Circuit) — does not name Hedley, but concerns the same enforcement context as his Levy Armstrong matter; no ruling found.
• Investigative and courtroom coverage: the Washington Post, CBS News, CNBC, the Guardian, the Hill, Lawfare, CNN, Spectrum News 1, the Minnesota Reformer, and the Associated Press.
• No civil suit, state bar discipline, or organizational monitoring campaign naming Hedley individually was found.

Truth and Reconciliation Considerations

Investigation priorities

1. Who within DOJ decided to route the Hutchinson investigation to the Civil Rights Division rather than the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, and what role, if any, did Hedley play in that decision versus simply being assigned the courtroom appearance?
2. Who conducted the grand-jury presentation against Hutchinson, and did Hedley personally participate in it, as distinct from announcing its outcome?
3. Does DOJ intend to re-present the Hutchinson matter to a new grand jury, and who would make that decision?
4. Who within DOJ and the Civil Rights Division decided to bring the first-ever criminal charge under the FACE Act’s religious-worship provision in Levy Armstrong, despite the Division’s own historical reluctance to use it, and what legal review preceded that decision?
5. Why did three DOJ attorneys withdraw from the Levy Armstrong docket — Weir on August 19, 2026, one week after appearing, and Gieseke and Frederick on September 25, 2026, by a notice carrying Hedley’s name in its signature block — and was their departure connected to internal disagreement over the case? Neither notice states a reason.
6. What was Hedley’s personal involvement, if any, in U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen’s demand that Magistrate Judge Micko’s warrant refusal be reviewed, and in DOJ’s subsequent mandamus petition to the Eighth Circuit?
7. Hedley joined the Gendron prosecution in April 2026 (notice of appearance April 15) and co-signed the government’s June-July 2026 pretrial filings. What is his role at the capital trial now under way — does he examine witnesses or argue to the jury?
8. Did Hedley co-sign DOJ’s October 16, 2026 consolidated opposition to the motions to dismiss in Levy Armstrong (Doc. 909, filed through Keenan’s ECF account)? And did he draft or sign the government’s response to the false-information and grand-jury-disclosure allegations in Georgia Fort’s August 2026 dismissal motions? He filed the October 12 response to the government-misconduct dismissal motions (Doc. 854); whether it answers Fort’s motions was not confirmed.
9. When, and by whom, was Hedley designated “Acting” Senior Litigation Counsel? His Gendron filings in June and July 2026 carry the title “Trial Attorney”; his Levy Armstrong filings from September 25, 2026 carry the acting senior title.

Testimony value

As lead counsel of record in Levy Armstrong and as the attorney who announced the Hutchinson no-bill, Hedley could testify to who within the Civil Rights Division and DOJ leadership directed the venue and charging decisions in both matters, what he was told about the evidentiary basis for each before his courtroom appearances, and whether he raised concerns internally about either the unusual venue choice in Hutchinson or the untested constitutional theory in Levy Armstrong before either proceeded. That testimony would speak to the decision chains above him — the record as it stands documents his courtroom and docket presence, not personal authorship of either charging strategy.

Institutional reform

• Require DOJ to disclose, on request from the relevant oversight committee, the internal basis for routing a false-statements-to-Congress investigation to a component other than the U.S. Attorney’s Office that would ordinarily handle it.
• Require written legal review, disclosed to the court, before DOJ brings a criminal charge under a constitutional provision the charging component has previously declined to use on constitutional-concern grounds.
• Codify the practice Chief Judge Schiltz articulated from the bench — that a demand for emergency judicial review requires an actual, documented emergency — as a binding standard rather than relying on an individual judge’s case-by-case rebuke.
• Protect career and detailed DOJ attorneys from adverse personnel action for raising internal concerns about a charging or warrant-review decision before it reaches a courtroom.
• Require Senate confirmation, or a defined and disclosed appointment category, for an “acting” senior litigation counsel role exercising lead-attorney authority in significant federal prosecutions.

TRC category mapping: Prosecutorial implementer at the senior-litigation-counsel level — distinguished from the executive branch principals (Civil Rights Division leadership, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota) who are reported to have made the venue and charging decisions documented above.

Cross-References

Skills: malice-evaluator, public-records-research-specialist

Related profiles: cassidy-hutchinson-profile, john-borchert-profile, harmeet-dhillon-profile

Topics: Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, selective prosecution, prosecutorial discretion, FACE Act, judicial independence, January 6 investigation, Cassidy Hutchinson grand jury, Cities Church protest

Primary disclosure: Citizen Analyst has not obtained an OGE Form 278e or a DOJ ethics agreement for Hedley. A Civil Rights Division litigation counsel below Senate-confirmed rank is typically a confidential filer under the Ethics in Government Act (OGE Form 450), not a public filer (OGE Form 278e); this profile has not independently confirmed Hedley’s filer category with DOJ. Confidential OGE 450 reports are not publicly releasable, so the public record cannot settle the question; only DOJ can. [NEEDS VERIFICATION]

Sources

1. The Washington Post (Perry Stein, Salvador Rizzo, Jeremy Roebuck), “Grand jury declines to indict Cassidy Hutchinson over Jan. 6 testimony,” October 27, 2026, quoted via Election Law Blog. https://electionlawblog.org/2026/grand-jury-declines-to-indict-cassidy-hutchinson-over-jan-6-testimony
2. LinkedIn, “Neville ‘Ned’ Hedley – Federal Litigation | Regulatory Issues” (self-reported professional profile, not an official DOJ source). https://www.linkedin.com/in/neville-ned-hedley-42b7ab61
3. The Federalist Society, biography of Ned Hedley (self-submitted, per the Federalist Society’s disclaimer), archived April 22, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20260422154840id_/https://fedsoc.org/bio/ned-hedley
4. Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, Objection of Neville Hedley, In re Novo Nordisk Securities Litigation, No. 3:17-cv-00209-ZNQ-LHG (D.N.J.), filed June 7, 2022. https://hlli.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/NovoNordisk.354-1.Hedley-Objection.pdf
5. U.S. District Court, D.D.C. (sic, docket court as listed), Manhart v. AJP Education Foundation, No. 1:24-cv-08209, parties page (CourtListener). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69145626/parties/manhart-v-ajp-education-foundation
6. Center for Individual Rights (amicus host), Amicus Brief of Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, Texas Top Cop Shop v. Blanche, 5th Cir. No. 24-40792, filed December 18, 2024. https://cir-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/texas-top-cop-shop-hamilton-lincoln-amicus.pdf
7. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Comment Letter of Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, File No. S7-10-22, June 17, 2022. https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20131953-302411.pdf
8. CourtListener docket, Faoro v. Jewish Voice for Peace, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00289 (Declaration of Neville Hedley). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69596495/faoro-v-jewish-voice-for-peace-inc
9. U.S. District Court, D. Minn., United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025, docket (CourtListener). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72213271/united-states-v-levy-armstrong
10. U.S. District Court, D. Minn., United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025, indictment entry (CourtListener). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212421/united-states-v-levy-armstrong
11. Daily Mail (Stephen M. Lepore), “Grand jury declines to indict Cassidy Hutchinson over testimony about Trump’s actions on Jan 6,” October 27, 2026. https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16244075/Grand-jury-declines-indict-Cassidy-Hutchinson-Trump.html
12. The Hill, “Federal grand jury declines to indict Cassidy Hutchinson,” October 27, 2026. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6176826-grand-jury-rejects-hutchinson-indictment
13. CNBC, “Grand jury fails to indict Cassidy Hutchinson at Trump DOJ’s urging,” October 27, 2026. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/27/cassidy-hutchinson-doj-grand-jury-trump.html
14. CBS News (Sarah N. Lynch), “Grand jury declines to indict Trump critic Cassidy Hutchinson over Jan. 6 testimony,” October 27, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/grand-jury-declines-to-indict-trump-critic-cassidy-hutchinson-over-jan-6-testimony
15. CBS News (Sarah N. Lynch, Jacob Rosen), “DOJ trying to indict former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who testified about Jan. 6,” updated October 8, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-seeking-indictment-cassidy-hutchinson-jan-6
16. The Guardian (Sam Levine), “DoJ seeks to charge ex-Trump aide who gave key testimony on January 6 attack,” October 8, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/08/cassidy-hutchinson-criminal-charges-doj
17. Daily Mail (Stephen M. Lepore), same article as source 11 (House Republican referral by Reps. Jordan and Loudermilk, March 2026).
18. CBS News (Sarah N. Lynch), “Appeals court declines to order lower court to sign arrest warrants against Don Lemon, others in church protest,” updated January 24, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/appeals-court-don-lemon-protest-minnesota-probable-cause
19. Red Line for Civil Rights (Democracy Forward Foundation), “United States v. Nekima Levy-Armstrong, Don Lemon, et al.” (advocacy source; procedural/docket claims treated as checkable, framing claims flagged as advocacy). https://redlinecivilrights.org/project/united-states-v-nekima-levy-armstrong-don-lemon-et-al
20. Lawfare (Peyton Baker), “Cities Church Arraignment Signals Early Battles Over FACE Act and § 241,” published February 15, 2026. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/cities-church-arraignment-signals-early-battles-over-face-act-and—241
21. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Justice Department Files Judicial Misconduct Complaint Alleging MN Judges Made Improper and Unethical Comments to the New York Times,” September 30, 2026. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-judicial-misconduct-complaint-alleging-mn-judges-made-improper-and
22. U.S. District Court, S.D. Cal., United States v. Russell, No. 3:24-cr-01015, docket (CourtListener). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68541944/united-states-v-russell
23. CBS Minnesota/WCCO (Adam Duxter), “Don Lemon, others plead not guilty to Minnesota church protest charges,” updated February 13, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/don-lemon-nekima-levy-armstrong-st-paul-church-protest-arrest-arraignment
24. Wikipedia, “Nekima Levy Armstrong” (general-reliability source; corroborated on the protest date and pastor/ICE detail by source 23). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekima_Levy_Armstrong
25. U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Plea Agreement, United States v. Alexander W. Wright, filed July 18, 2012 (signed by Neville S. Hedley, Counsel for the United States, Antitrust Division, Chicago). https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/516846/dl
26. U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, case page, “U.S. v. Alexander W. Wright.” https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-alexander-w-wright
27. CBS News (Sarah N. Lynch), “DOJ charging 30 more people for roles in anti-ICE protest at Minnesota church,” updated February 27, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-30-more-defendants-charged-anti-ice-protest-at-minnesota-church
28. The Guardian (Clint Combs), “Judge restricts travel of ICE protester charged with disrupting Minnesota church service,” published July 25, 2026, updated July 28, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/25/judge-restricts-travel-minnesota-church-service-ice-protester
29. The Guardian (Sam Levine, Rachel Leingang), “US law enforcement gave false information in case against woman charged in anti-ICE protest,” published August 6, 2026, updated August 7, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/06/law-enforcement-false-information-anti-ice-protest
30. U.S. District Court, W.D.N.Y., United States v. Gendron, No. 1:22-cr-00109, docket and parties record (CourtListener). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63593107/united-states-v-gendron
31. CNN, “Jury selection to begin in federal hate crimes trial over Buffalo supermarket shooting,” October 13, 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/13/us/buffalo-tops-payton-gendron-federal-trial
32. Spectrum News 1 (Dana Damiani), “Jury selection in Gendron federal trial to begin Tuesday,” October 12, 2026. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/us/snplus/public-safety/2026/10/12/jury-selection-in-gendron-federal-trial-to-begin-tuesday
33. Minnesota Reformer, “Journalist Georgia Fort, who filmed ICE protest in church, seeks dismissal of federal charges,” August 6, 2026. https://minnesotareformer.com/2026/08/06/journalist-georgia-fort-who-filmed-ice-protest-in-church-seeks-dismissal-of-federal-charges
34. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States v. Jenkins, 504 F.3d 694 (9th Cir. 2007), No. 06-50049, counsel listing (CourtListener). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1429885/united-states-v-jenkins/
35. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Release No. 5608-09, “CFTC Charges Minnesota Resident Charles ‘Chuck’ E. Hays and His Company, Crossfire Trading, LLC, with Running a $5.5 Million Ponzi Scheme,” February 5, 2009. https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/5608-09
36. The State Bar of California, Attorney Licensee Profile, Neville Spencer Hedley, No. 241022 (law school, admission date, status history, discipline record), retrieved November 7, 2026. https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/241022
37. U.S. District Court, D. Minn., United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025, Doc. 889, Government’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion for a Bill of Particulars, filed October 16, 2026, signed “/s/ Neville S. Hedley, Acting Senior Litigation Counsel.” https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72213271/889/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/ (full text read from the PACER copy hosted by NACDL: https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/3a75aa8b-a81e-43b1-ae92-57cfcd0c9065/z-z-b-gov-uscourts-mnd-231103-889-0.pdf)
38. U.S. District Court, D. Minn., United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025, Doc. 827, Notice of Withdrawal (Megan Frederick, Greta A. Gieseke), filed September 25, 2026. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72213271/827/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/
39. U.S. District Court, W.D.N.Y., United States v. Gendron, No. 1:22-cr-00109, Doc. 573, Notice of Attorney Appearance (Neville S. Hedley), filed April 15, 2026. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63593107/573/united-states-v-gendron/
40. U.S. District Court, W.D.N.Y., United States v. Gendron, No. 1:22-cr-00109, Doc. 597, Government’s Omnibus Penalty Phase Motion in Limine, filed June 17, 2026 (unsealed August 3, 2026). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63593107/597/united-states-v-gendron/
41. U.S. District Court, W.D.N.Y., United States v. Gendron, No. 1:22-cr-00109, Doc. 637, Joint Proposed Jury Selection Procedures, filed July 20, 2026. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63593107/637/united-states-v-gendron/
42. U.S. District Court, W.D.N.Y., United States v. Gendron, No. 1:22-cr-00109, Doc. 626, Government’s Combined Guilt Phase Pretrial Memorandum and Motions in Limine (redacted version of ECF No. 598), dated June 17, 2026, filed July 16, 2026. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63593107/626/united-states-v-gendron/
43. U.S. District Court, W.D.N.Y., United States v. Gendron, No. 1:22-cr-00109, Doc. 593, Official Transcript of Status Conference held April 22, 2026, filed June 15, 2026. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63593107/593/united-states-v-gendron/
44. U.S. District Court, D. Minn., United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025, Doc. 619, Notice of Attorney Appearance (Kristian Weir), August 12, 2026, and Doc. 632, Notice of Attorney Withdrawal (Kristian Weir), August 19, 2026 (docket entries). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72213271/619/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/ ; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72213271/632/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/
45. U.S. District Court, D. Minn., United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025, Doc. 909, Government’s Consolidated Response in Opposition to Multiple Defense Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State an Offense, filed October 16, 2026 (docket entry; document not in RECAP). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72213271/909/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/
46. U.S. District Court, D. Minn., United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025, Doc. 937, Minute Entry, Criminal Pretrial Motions Hearing: Day One, November 3, 2026. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72213271/937/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/
47. U.S. District Court, D. Minn., United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025, government filings entered through Hedley’s ECF account: Docs. 802 (September 9, 2026), 814, 816, 817 (September 18, 2026), 854 (October 12, 2026), 928 (October 23, 2026) (docket entries). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72213271/802/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/ ; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72213271/814/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/ ; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72213271/816/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/ ; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72213271/817/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/ ; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72213271/854/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/ ; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72213271/928/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/
48. U.S. District Court, S.D. Cal., United States v. Russell, No. 3:24-cr-01015, Doc. 186, Notice of Attorney Appearance (Neville S. Hedley), filed May 27, 2026. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68541944/186/united-states-v-russell/
49. NBC 7 San Diego (City News Service), “Former San Diego County deputy found guilty in detainee’s deadly shooting,” March 3, 2026. https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-deputy-convicted-detainee-shooting/3989750
50. Times of San Diego (City News Service), “Ex-SD Sheriff’s deputy sentenced to 12 years in prison for killing unarmed detainee,” May 30, 2026. https://timesofsandiego.com/crime/2026/05/30/ex-sd-sheriffs-deputy-sentenced-to-12-years-in-prison-for-killing-unarmed-detainee

Profile Status: Next Review:

Corrections

Correction [2026-11-01]: Clarified that the indictment’s journalist defendants included Georgia Fort as well as Don Lemon, since the earlier text named only Lemon and could have implied he was the sole journalist charged.

Correction [2026-11-01]: Corrected the description of the defendants to say two journalists and a civil-rights attorney (not one journalist) and added that a superseding indictment expanded the case from 9 to 39 defendants.