I went on Fox & Friends First Thursday morning to talk with Todd Piro about two legal stories worth unpacking. The first was the pretrial detention of Cole Tomas Allen, the suspect in the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting. The second was Meta’s ongoing court battle with New Mexico over child safety on its platforms.
The Most Reckless Comment I’ve Heard From a Bench in a Long Time
Todd led with the news that U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui had publicly criticized the conditions of Cole Allen’s confinement at the DC Jail and compared Allen’s treatment unfavorably to January 6 defendants. My reaction was blunt: that comment is reckless, and it makes no legal sense given the facts in this case.
Cole Allen was caught on videotape — not alleged, caught — attempting to kill as many people as possible at the Correspondents’ Dinner, including the President. That is Count One of his indictment: attempted assassination of the President under 18 U.S.C. § 1751(b), carrying up to life imprisonment. Beyond the videotape, he made admissions and took selfies documenting his intent. Critically, reports indicate he was not planning to survive the attack — meaning he presents a suicide risk, a danger to himself as much as to others. The D.C. Department of Corrections has an independent obligation to address that risk. Doing so is standard protocol, not punishment.
For Judge Faruqui to frame that as preferential mistreatment signals a profound misreading of what pretrial isolation is for. U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro put it plainly on X:
“Welcome to Washington DC where US magistrate judge [Faruqui] believes a defendant armed to the teeth and attempting to assassinate the president is entitled to preferential treatment in his confinement compared to every other defendant.”
She’s right. You are entitled to a fair trial, not a comfortable jail stay. Detention is supposed to carry a deterrent weight. That is not cruelty — it is the design of the system.
The January 6 Comparison Doesn’t Hold Up
The political tell in Judge Faruqui’s comment was the January 6 comparison. His argument, as reported, was that Cole Allen is being treated worse than January 6 defendants were. There is a fundamental problem with that framing.
January 6 was not a banner day for this country — I’ll grant that freely. But whatever you believe about that event, no one at the Capitol was attempting to assassinate the sitting President of the United States. The comparison conflates what are legally and factually incomparable situations.
The Supreme Court, in Fischer v. United States, 603 U.S. 480 (2024), invalidated a core charge used against many January 6 defendants — the 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) obstruction count. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a 6–3 majority, held that the statute requires impairment of a physical document or object used in an official proceeding. That ruling threw out charges against more than 300 defendants. The legal foundation for treating January 6 cases as comparably severe prosecutions was already weakened by the Court itself. Invoking that framework to criticize Cole Allen’s confinement makes Judge Faruqui’s comment look even more detached from legal reality.
The Real Challenge Ahead for DOJ
My deeper worry is what this episode reveals about the prosecution’s path to conviction. The evidence is overwhelming: videotape, selfies, admissions. And yet the trial will happen before a DC jury and a DC judge in a city with a particular political composition. I do not want to prejudge a verdict — I genuinely hope the evidence carries the day. But the venue is not neutral. There is one charitable read: maybe DOJ is being deliberately careful about Allen’s pretrial conditions precisely to eliminate any appealable issues. If that is the strategy, I understand the logic, even if the optics are rough.
Meta, New Mexico, and the Snowball That’s Already Rolling
The second topic Todd raised was State of New Mexico v. Meta Platforms, Inc., currently in Phase 2 of trial before Chief Judge Bryan Biedscheid in Santa Fe’s First Judicial District Court. Phase 1 ended with a Santa Fe County jury finding Meta liable under New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act and returning a $375 million verdict. Phase 2 is a bench trial on public nuisance and the remedy package — which includes algorithm redesign, age verification, a court-appointed monitor, and $3.7 billion in restitution over 15 years.
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez summarized his theory of the case:
“We proved that Meta knowingly harmed children. Now, we’re asking a court to order the fixes Meta has refused to make on its own. The changes we’re seeking are reasonable, achievable, and supported by child safety and technology experts. There is no credible argument against them. Only a company that has decided its bottom line matters more than the safety of its kids.”
My read is that we are early in what will become a sustained multi-front legal campaign against social-media companies over child safety. You have private plaintiffs suing for money damages. You have state AGs like Torrez seeking court-ordered structural changes. And looming behind all of that is the possibility of federal regulators and Congress stepping in. Each of those tracks amplifies the others.
Todd asked whether Meta might actually pull Instagram and Facebook from New Mexico if the injunctive relief gets severe enough. I think that is unlikely as a business matter — if Meta starts exiting states, it compounds its financial exposure far more than compliance would. But the threat itself signals how seriously the company views the Phase 2 remedy demands.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.