Abdul Hakim Shabazz Removed from Federal Court Amid Protective Order Violation

Indianapolis, February 5, 2025 - In a dramatic turn of events at the Federal Courthouse today, journalist and attorney Abdul Hakim Shabazz was asked to leave during a hearing involving Gabriel Whitley, who was in court for pleading guilty to charges of lying to the Federal Court. The incident unfolded amidst allegations that Shabazz had violated a protective order in place against him.

The hearing was already fraught with tension when Whitley, through his legal counsel, made it clear to the court that he would not proceed with the hearing unless Shabazz was removed from the courtroom. Despite possessing a media pass, Shabazz was escorted out following a brief discussion between Whitley's attorney, the Federal District Attorney, and the presiding judge, who retired to chambers before making the decision.

The protective order in question was issued after Whitley allegedly posted Shabazz's home address online, accompanied by threats that suggested "National Law Enforcement need to raid his house and shoot him like a pig." This incident had previously led to a protective order being placed on Whitley to prevent further harassment or threats towards Shabazz.

Shabazz, known for his political commentary and legal work in Indiana, acknowledged the protective order but seemed to be in a contradictory position today. The judge, upon returning from chambers, made it clear that one cannot "have a protective order and then have it both ways," implying that Shabazz's actions or presence in the courtroom were in conflict with the terms of the order.

Special Agent Spencer Brooks was present, positioned between the two parties during this tense exchange, highlighting the severity of the situation.

The information Shabazz received, according to reports, was already public, and he did not gain any additional, non-public details from the hearing. The focus of today's court session was supposed to be on Whitley's plea and the subsequent legal proceedings, but the situation with Shabazz became an unexpected focal point.

This incident underscores the complexities involved when legal protections like protective orders intersect with the rights and responsibilities of those in the public eye, particularly journalists. It also raises questions about the balance between free speech, personal security, and the administration of justice in high-profile legal cases.

As of now, no further statements have been released by either party or the court regarding the outcome or continuation of Whitley's hearing. This event has certainly fueled discussions on media rights, legal ethics, and the enforcement of court orders in the public sphere.

The legal and media communities will be watching closely to see how this situation evolves, especially concerning the implications for journalism, legal practice, and public safety.