FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ohio/Tennessee – A forthcoming oral argument in Reguli & Hancock v. Hetzel, et al. on March 19, 2026, will test the outer limits of immunity for prosecutors and other state officials accused of weaponizing the criminal justice system against a critic of tax-funded child‑welfare practices.

Connie Reguli, a firebrand Tennessee attorney who had publicly challenged the Department of Children’s Services, and her client, Wendy Hancock, were indicted for custodial interference after Reguli helped Hancock contest a secret ex parte removal order obtained by federal defendant, and state attorney, Tracy Hetzel, even after Reguli made several attempts to cooperate with the state agency investigation. 

The indictment cited the statute for custodial interference, but District Attorneys Kimberly Helper and Mary Katherine Evins surgically removed an essential element of the crime in the language of the indictment—“after the expiration of the noncustodial parent’s lawful period of visitation”—even though officials knew there was no visitation order at all. The grand jury relied on the flawed language to find probable cause and thus, initiating a totally fraudulent prosecution. 

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals ultimately reversed both convictions, holding that Hancock’s conduct was not criminal, and therefore, Reguli could not be guilty as an accessory to a non‑crime. Yet when Reguli and Hancock sued, the federal district court granted absolute immunity to the prosecutors and qualified immunity to the DCS lawyer and Brentwood Police, reasoning that there was no clearly established precedent addressing the fabrication of a crime, as opposed to the fabrication of evidence.

The federal civil rights case was filed in May 2024 claiming that the defendants had violated their Fourth Amendment rights with a malicious prosecution. These defendants, prosecutors Kimberly Helper and Mary Katherine Evins, DCS attorney Tracy Hetzel, and Brentwood Police Lori Russ and David O’Neil, had worked collectively and cohesively to carry on a fake trial for over five years.  The Tennessee taxpayers paid thousands of dollars to investigate, prosecute, and appeal.  In the end, it was all theater.  But in doing so, they were able to shut down Reguli’s law practice, dismantle her reputation, and cost dozens of clients their attorney in the midst of contentious litigation. 

The plaintiffs argue this is precisely the kind of “obvious” constitutional violation that needs no case on all fours to “clearly establish” the rights of citizens.  Here, long‑standing rules already forbid prosecuting conduct that is not legislatively defined as a crime, and black‑letter law and ethics rules bar prosecutors from pursuing charges without probable cause.

“If this conduct is protected by immunity, then the promise that ‘no one is above the law’ rings hollow,” said counsel for the plaintiffs. “Officials will be free to re‑write criminal statutes on paper to fit their targets, knowing that—even if an appellate court later fixes the criminal conviction—the victims will have no civil remedy. Citizens who suffer the loss and damage of a malicious prosecution will have no recourse.” 

The Sixth Circuit’s ruling will not only determine whether Ms. Reguli and Ms. Hancock can proceed to discovery and trial, but may also clarify how far absolute and qualified immunity extend when officials are alleged to have used their authority to fabricate, rather than enforce, the law.

For more information or to arrange interviews after oral argument, interested media and advocacy groups may contact counsel for the plaintiffs.

Connie Reguli can be found on social media platforms and operates the Family Forward Project on Facebook.