Lindsay Clancy, 36, faces three counts of first-degree murder and life in prison without parole for strangling her three children – Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callen, 8 – to death in 2023. Clancy pleaded not guilty by reason of postpartum insanity.

The Details: Judge William Sullivan declared the mistrial on Friday afternoon, saying, "I understood how hard everybody worked in this case. I understood that you all gave everything you could and probably more than you thought you could."

The jury foreperson reportedly stated to Sullivan on Thursday that one juror was "rufus[ing to] listen to the law" that defines "reasonable doubt." The jury then reported on Friday morning that the deadlock remained, writing, "It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to." The defense followed with a request for the outlying juror's removal and filed an emergency motion to stay the verdict, which Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) Associate Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt denied.

Key Defense Arguments: Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington argued that Clancy was undertreated and overmedicated when she carried out the murders – factors that denoted her legal inculpability. He called Clancy a "fantastic, wonderful individual." He claimed that during the trial – which has given voice to about 70 out of 200 witnesses since it began on July 27th – "nobody had anything bad to say about her except for the two prosecutors and apparently [Plymouth County District Attorney] Tim Cruz."

Criticizing the outlying juror, he said, "She deserved that acquittal that she should have had." He also told Sullivan that his method of reviewing "reasonable doubt" with the jurors was "soft." Forensic psychiatrist and filicide expert Dr. Phillip Resnick said Clancy believed she was doing what was best for her children.

Key Prosecution Arguments: Prosecuting Attorneys Jennifer Sprague and Shanan Buckingham argued instead that Clancy, who sent her husband to pick up food before carrying out the murders, acted with "deliberate, premeditated, and extreme atrocity and cruelty." Forensic psychologist Kirk Heilbrun partially agreed with Resnick's assessment in saying Clancy's actions aligned with "altruistic filicide," but he said that such an alignment supplants the postpartum psychosis argument.

RELATED: Does Lindsay Clancy Deserve Sympathy for Her Mental Health and Actions? | AllSides

What's Next: Reddington requested that Sullivan consider a not-guilty ruling due to insufficient evidence, and a hearing is now set for September 29th. If denied, Cruz will be tasked with deciding whether to establish a retrial. Cruz said on Friday, "We're here at this courthouse today because those children are not."

How The Media Covered It: This case has garnered extreme national polarization alternative to the traditional left-to-right political scale, and it's erupted deep questions about psychiatric care, mental health precedents, criminal culpability, and nuances in court proceedings. Read more about the culture of this case.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

House Democrats on Wednesday blocked a proposed Constitutional amendment to prevent expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

The Bill: To pass the house, the bill would have needed a two-thirds majority vote, but only garnered 212-206, with all but one Democrat opposing the measure. The bill, if passed by the House, Senate, and ratified by 38 states would have stipulated that "The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices."

Frame Democrats As Radical: The Washington Examiner (Lean Right bias) called the measure "a symbolic gesture," explaining that it was "not expected to advance." The article highlighted Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), who proposed the bill, saying the Democrats voted against the bill "so they can follow through on a radical socialist agenda." The Examiner also mentioned that "The Republican Party instantly seized on the outcome as an avenue to frame Democrats as radical ahead of the midterm elections."

Republican Concerns: Reuters (Center) asserted that "House Republicans staged the vote to highlight the potential for Democrats, angered by rulings on issues such as abortion and voting rights, to expand the court and weaken its conservative majority if they regain control of Congress in November's midterms." The outlet also noted that both parties "have historically staged votes on bills they know will fail but are known as 'messaging bills' that can be used to shore up support with voters during election campaigns and force political opponents into taking stands on thorny issues." Reuters also said that Republican Speaker Mike Johnson's decision to schedule the vote "underscored Republican concerns that Trump's low approval ratings could cost the party its House or Senate majority."

Fever Pitch: The Washington Post (Lean Left), before the House vote, published an article headlined "Angry at the Supreme Court, liberals push a slew of plans for overhauling it." The article highlighted a bill that proposes increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to 13 while another bill would cut the lifetime terms of justices to 18 years. According to the Post, "the latest wave of proposals to overhaul the Supreme Court have reached something of a fever pitch over the past few months, as Democrats grow increasingly frustrated with the court's rightward turn."

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proposed regulations to end federal tax exemptions for "private schools that engage in racial discrimination" on Thursday.

The Details: According to the IRS, the rules would affect primary schools, secondary schools, colleges, and universities that discriminate based on race, color, or national or ethnic origin across any program or policy. Religious schools will retain the right to select students based on religious affiliation and maintain religious missions or observance. Institutions may still expand opportunities for disadvantaged students using race-neutral criteria, with final regulations taking effect for taxable years starting on or after May 31, 2027. The two agencies think that if implemented, the proposal could impact 18,000 institutions.

For Context: The proposal follows up on an executive order President Trump signed on his second day in office, "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity." In March 2025, the Trump administration launched an investigation into diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs at over 50 universities across the United States.

How The Media Covered It: The Daily Caller (Right bias) first reported the news on Wednesday night, before the federal government confirmed it on Thursday. Outlets across the spectrum framed the policy slightly differently in headlines. The Daily Caller repeated the administration's wording of "racial discrimination" in its headline, whereas The New York Times (Lean Left) described it as "aid" for "minority students." Just The News (Lean Right) described it as "race-based aid," and US News & World Report (Lean Left) said it affects schools with "DEI policies." The New York Times included perspectives from several "nonprofit experts" who were critical of the proposal.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.