Courts

KATIE Price has been banned from driving for the seventh time – meaning she’s spent six years since 2010 barred from getting behind the wheel.

The ex-glamour model and mum-of-five’s latest run-in with the law comes after a Ford Capri registered to her was caught at 80mph on the A64 near Strutton in North Yorkshire.

CCTV released by police shows the 47-year-old behind the wheel during the incident on October 15, 2025, the same day Price appeared on stage with celeb pal Kerry Katona for An Evening with Katie Price & Kerry Katona at Scarborough Spa.

She has now been prosecuted and convicted of failing to respond to police, landing her with a six-month driving ban and a legal bill topping £1,000.

A judge previously described her as having “one of the worst driving records” they had ever seen.

The TV personality has also admitted it had been very hard to get the insurance she needs because of her history with driving.

PAY THE PRICE

Katie Price banned from driving for SEVENTH time over 80mph speeding ticket

duck and weave

Kerry Katona swerves punch row question about Katie Price’s husband

Speaking previously to The Sun, Price also said she was sure someone she knows had left anonymous complaints to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), accusing her of being “not fit to drive” to stop her getting her licence back.

Katie Price’s seven driving bans

• Ban 1 – December 2010: Price was given 12 points between June 2008 and December 2010, resulting in a six month ban
• Ban 2 – August 2012: She was slapped with a 12-month ban after failing to respond to two speeding tickets
• Ban 3 – February 2018: The star was banned for another six months for failing to give details about the person driving her speeding car
• Ban 4 – January 2019: Price was banned for a further three months for driving while banned
• Ban 5 – November 2019 she was issued with another ban, this time for two years – which was eventually cut to 18 months on appeal
• Ban 6 – December 2021: Price was arrested for turning over her BMW and as a result was banned for a sixth time for two years
• Ban 7 – April 2026: Court papers show Price was charged with speeding and failing to give information relating to the identification of the driver of a vehicle after being caught driving at 80mph

Ban 1 – December 2010

In June 2008 she was given three points for talking on her phone while behind the wheel.

In July 2010 she was given another four points for speeding at 99mph, and a further three that September for veering from her lane in her 7½-ton pink horsebox.

Price’s first ban, for six months, came that December after she was given three more points for doing 83mph.

Ban 2 – August 2012

In August 2012, she was slapped with a 12-month ban after failing to respond to two speeding tickets.

Ban 3 – February 2018

In February 2018, the star was banned for another six months for failing to give details about the person driving her speeding car.

Ban 4 – January 2019

The following January saw Price banned for a further three months for driving while banned, and then a month later was slapped with another three months.

Ban 5 – November 2019

Later that November she was issued with another ban, this time for two years – which was eventually cut to 18 months on appeal.

Ban 6 – December 2021

In September 2021 Price was arrested for turning over her BMW in a drink driving smash in Horsham, West Sussex, and as a result was banned for a sixth time for two years and given a suspended sentence that December.

Repeat offenders would usually face a minimum of 12 weeks behind bars but her sentence was reduced below the custody threshold after she entered rehab while on holiday in Las Vegas.

At Crawley magistrates’ court on December 14 2021, District Judge Amanda Kelly admitted the public would be “appalled” — and that Price deserved to be spending Christmas behind bars.

She added: “Your actions on that night were incredibly selfish.

“When you chose to get behind the wheel of the car that night, you showed no consideration for others.

“You could have killed someone’s child, partner, parent or friend.

“You appear to think, it seems, that you are above the law.”

Speaking about the incident to The Sun, Price said: “I could have killed myself.

“I could have killed someone else. I deserved to be punished, enough was enough.

“Getting in the car was a terrible mistake I’m so sorry for.

“That was a prime example of me having been triggered and not knowing how to handle it, an example of me spiralling out of control because I needed help.”

Ban 7 – April 2026

Price’s latest conviction and driving disqualification was dealt with last week in the Single Justice Procedure, a secretive court process where magistrates deal with criminal cases behind closed doors.

Court papers show Price was charged with speeding and failing to give information relating to the identification of the driver of a vehicle.

The Ford Capri was caught on a speed camera on a 70mph stretch of the A64 at 3.03pm on October 15 last year.

She was sent a police letter about the incident on October 20, and a reminder on November 10, warning her of looming criminal proceedings.

However, the police force said no response was received to either letter.

Magistrate Claire Sagar, sitting at Harrogate Magistrates’ Court last Tuesday, found Price guilty of the failure to respond to police charge, ordering her to pay a £660 fine, £120 in costs, and a £264 victim surcharge.

Due to the secretive nature of the court process, it is not known if Price was given the chance to argue against another driving ban, it is unclear whether the court knew of her previous driving record, and the records do not reveal if she already had penalty points on her licence.

The speeding charge was withdrawn by the police.

The Sun has approached Price’s reps for comment.

THE drug dealer known as the Ketamine Queen has been sentenced to 15 years behind bars – the maximum term – for her role in Matthew Perry’s tragic death.

Jasveen Sangha, 42, pleaded guilty to five federal charges in September, including distributing ketamine that resulted in the fatal overdose of the Friends star in 2023.

Sangha, a US-British dual national, appeared at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Courthouse in Los Angeles and was slammed by the actor’s stepmom, Debbie Perry, as a “heartless woman”.

In a victim impact statement obtained by The U.S. Sun ahead of the sentencing, Debbie urged a judge to impose the maximum sentence on Sangha.

“The pain you’ve caused to hundreds, maybe thousands, is irreversible,” Debbie wrote in court docs submitted late Tuesday.

“There is no joy… to be found. No light in the window. They won’t be back. That thought comes through our day. Everyday. No escape. You caused this.

NEW ADMISSION

‘Ketamine Queen’ pleads guilty to selling fatal drug dose to Matthew Perry

“You who has talent for business. Enough to make money. Chose the one way that hurts people. How sad for you.

“How will you ever find joy. Have you ever found joy? How sad for you. How sad for you. How sad for us all. We miss him.”

She then begged the court, “Please give this heartless woman the maximum prison sentence so she won’t be able to hurt other families like ours.”

Perry’s mom, Suzanne, and stepdad, Keith Morrison, were seen arriving at court on Wednesday.

During the sentencing hearing, Morrison addressed the court and Sangha.

According to the New York Post, he called Perry a “brilliant and talented man,” and said he should have “had another act.”

“I feel bad for you, Miss Sangha,” he told her. “I don’t hate you. You are a drug dealer.”

Sangha was reportedly dressed in a white jump suit with one ankle shackled.

During an emotional moment, she wiped tears away with tissues from a box placed nearby, according to the outlet.

She also addressed the court, saying she takes full responsibility, adding she had the “rug of life ripped out” from under her.

Sangha had been in custody since August 2024 and was the last of five defendants charged in the investigation to plead guilty.

According to prosecutors, Sangha and a middleman named Erik Fleming sold Perry 25 vials of ketamine, including the fatal dose, for $6,000 in cash just four days before his death.

On the day Perry died, Sangha reportedly messaged Fleming and instructed him to delete their text history, an effort authorities say was meant to cover their tracks.

Prosecutors said in court docs, “She didn’t care and kept selling.

“Defendant’s actions show a cold callousness and disregard for life. She chose profits over people, and her actions have caused immense pain to the victims’ families and loved ones.”

Sangha admitted to one count of maintaining a drug-involved premises, three counts of ketamine distribution, and one count of ketamine distribution resulting in death.

Prosecutors dropped other charges as part of the plea agreement.

Fleming, who obtained the ketamine from Sangha and passed it to Perry’s personal assistant, later pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute ketamine resulting in death and faces years in prison.

Sangha operated out of her North Hollywood home, which authorities dubbed the “Sangha Stash House” after federal agents uncovered a large cache of drugs during a raid.

The haul included scores of ketamine vials, crystal meth, cocaine, counterfeit Xanax tablets, and a handgun.

An autopsy confirmed Perry died from acute effects of ketamine and drowning, with toxicology reports indicating multiple doses in the period leading up to his death.

Sangha flaunted her jet-set lifestyle on social media, posting pictures from parties with celebrities, lavish vacations, and designer clothing.

Just days after Perry’s death, she flew to Tokyo, staying at the luxury $1,400-a-night Mandarin Oriental hotel.

Sangha was first arrested in March 2024 on federal drug charges related to her long-running narcotics operation.

Five months later, new federal charges specifically tied to Perry’s overdose were filed; she was taken back into custody and her previous bail was revoked.

Her lawyer, Mark Geragos, announced last year that she would plead guilty, saying she was “taking responsibility for her actions.”

He later told reporters she “feels horrible about all of this” and “has felt horrible since day one.”

In an exclusive jail interview with The Sun before her sentencing, she also said, “I take full responsibility for my actions and the role I played in the events that led to this tragedy. 

“There are no excuses for what I did. I am deeply sorry for the pain I caused, especially to Matthew’s family. 

“Their loss is unimaginable and permanent. 

“I understand that my conduct — operating a drug business and continuing down that path — was reckless, dangerous, and wrong.”

She added, “I can’t undo the past but I can now respect the law. I am determined that my future now reflects accountability and growth.”

Sangha said she is now clean and sober after previous issues with drugs and alcohol and has been undergoing treatment behind bars.

Court documents filed this week show she has also been doing yoga and meditation while locked up at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center.

Sangha is the third of five people sentenced over Perry’s fatal overdose.

Dr. Salvador Plasencia, one of the doctors who supplied ketamine to Perry in the months before his death, was sentenced to 30 months in prison in December, followed by supervised release.

He shamefully sobbed in court, telling Perry’s mother, Suzanne, and relatives, “I’m just so sorry.”

Dr. Mark Chavez, the second physician involved, received eight months of home confinement and community service.

Two other defendants are still awaiting trial: Kenneth Iwamasa, Perry’s live-in personal assistant, who admitted to helping obtain and administer the ketamine and faces up to 15 years in prison, and Fleming, the middleman.

The five responsible for Matthew Perry’s death

Here are the five individuals allegedly behind Perry’s ketamine overdose.

• “Ketamine Queen of Los Angeles” Jasveen Sangha – Sangha, 42, pleaded guilty in September 2025 to federal charges for supplying the ketamine that caused Matthew Perry’s fatal overdose. Prosecutors say that after Perry’s death, she reportedly searched online, “can ketamine be listed as a cause of death.” She has now been jailed.
• “Dr. P” Dr. Salvador Plasencia – Plasencia, 42, was one of the physicians who illegally supplied ketamine to Perry before his death. He pleaded guilty in mid‑2025 to several federal counts of ketamine distribution. In December 2025, he was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined; he was remanded immediately to begin serving his term.
• Dr. Mark Chavez – Chavez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute ketamine in connection with Perry’s death. In December 2025, he was sentenced to eight months of home confinement, ordered to complete community service, and placed on supervised release.
• Kenneth Iwamasa – Iwamasa, 59, Perry’s live‑in assistant, admitted he obtained and administered ketamine to Perry as part of the scheme. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute ketamine causing death and is set to be sentenced in April.
• Eric Fleming – Fleming, 54, an intermediary dealer who helped coordinate the flow of ketamine from suppliers to Perry’s assistant, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and distribution charges. He is also set to be sentenced in April.

Court filings show Perry texted Iwamasa, “shoot me up with a big one,” shortly before his death.

Perry, who rose to fame as Chandler Bing on the hit 90s sitcom Friends, was found unconscious in his hot tub in Los Angeles in October 2023 at age 54.

US Attorney Martin Estrada said Perry had relapsed in the fall of 2023, and that “these defendants took advantage to profit for themselves.”

Perry had struggled with decades-long drug and alcohol addiction and became dependent on ketamine during infusion therapy aimed at treating his depression.

If you or someone you know is affected by any of the issues raised in this story, call SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) at 1-800-662-HELP (4357)

WASHINGTON — President Trump spent much of last week railing against the courts. The courts, in turn, spent it ruling against him.

While Trump made history as the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court, where he stared down justices as they questioned his bid to end birthright citizenship, quieter courtrooms across the country were challenging his agenda.

The challenges came in on immigration, on his White House ballroom project, on his own liability in the run-up to Jan. 6.

“Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!” he wrote on Truth Social on Monday.

By Friday, judges had served him loss after loss, each finding the administration had taken executive authority too far, too fast.

Immigration rulings

On immigration, the keystone of Trump’s policy platform, he faced a number of setbacks.

On Monday, a federal judge in California took a step that would allow a class-action lawsuit against the administration’s handling of certain asylum claims. The case concerns thousands of asylum seekers who had made appointments with immigration officials by using a Biden administration phone app called CBP One.

In many cases, migrants from around the world had waited months in Mexico for their turn to speak with border agents after securing appointments through the app.

Those appointments were suddenly canceled after Trump took office. The judge certified those asylum seekers as a class that can challenge the administration’s action in court.

In a similar case, a federal judge in Boston ruled Tuesday that the administration had unlawfully terminated the temporary legal status of as many as 900,000 immigrants who entered the country after using the phone app. Tens of thousands of those told by the administration to leave the U.S. “immediately” have since left or been deported.

The judge ordered the administration to reinstate the legal status and work authorization of those remaining.

“Today’s ruling is a clear rejection of an administration that has tried to erase lawful status for hundreds of thousands of people with the click of a button,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a legal organization that represented the migrants.

Sanctuary laws

Also Tuesday, a federal judge threw out a Justice Department lawsuit that accused Denver and Colorado of interfering with immigration enforcement and claimed that the city and state’s “sanctuary” laws violated the Constitution.

The ruling found that the federal government had not shown it could override state and local decisions about how to use their own resources. The Constitution, the judge said, does not let Washington commandeer local governments.

“Colorado gets to make a choice: How will our law enforcement operate in Colorado. The federal government, they don’t get to make that choice for us,” Colorado Atty. Gen. Phil Weiser said.

Birthright citizenship

The next day, the Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of Trump’s claim that birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to babies born in the U.S. to parents who are here unlawfully or temporarily.

Conservative and liberal judges alike questioned the arguments of Solicitor Gen. John Sauer, who represented the administration, saying he relied on “some pretty obscure sources,” including precedents that dated back to Roman law.

Trump, sitting feet from the proceedings, left the Supreme Court building halfway through.

“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” he wrote shortly after departing.

Austin Kocher, a Syracuse University professor who studies immigration enforcement, wrote on Substack after the Supreme Court hearing that, on immigration policy, there is always a gap between what an administration says it will do and what the government can actually deliver. That gap, he argued, is particularly evident in the second Trump administration.

“The White House has built its political identity around the promise of mass deportation, and the rhetoric has been relentless: record arrests, expanded detention, military flights, the spectacle of enforcement as governance,” Kocher wrote.

“But over the past several days,” he added, “developments from multiple fronts suggests that the operational foundations of the mass deportation campaign are more fragile than the administration would like anyone to believe.”

Defying judicial orders

In some cases, the Trump administration has been undeterred by judicial orders to stop certain practices. In a March ruling unsealed Thursday, a federal judge found that Border Patrol agents had continued making illegal arrests in California’s Central Valley without reasonable suspicion.

The government’s explanations for the arrests, wrote Judge Jennifer Thurston in Fresno, “rely on unsupported assumptions, hunches and generalizations about the relationship between a person’s apparent status as a day laborer and their immigration status.”

White House ballroom

Trump had kicked the week off March 29 by touting his 90,000-square-foot ballroom project, showing designs to reporters on Air Force One.

“I think it’ll be the greatest ballroom anywhere in the world,” he said. Two days later, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ordered a temporary halt to construction.

Leon stated that the president is the “steward” of the White House, not its “owner,” and ruled that he cannot proceed with such a massive structural change without express authorization from Congress.

In response, Trump raged on Truth Social: “In the Ballroom case, the Judge said we have to get Congressional approval. He is WRONG! Congressional approval has never been given on anything, in these circumstances, big or small, having to do with construction at the White House.”

His administration filed a motion Friday to block the judge’s ruling.

Jan 6. liability

On the same day, a judge ruled that Trump remains personally liable in a civil lawsuit tied to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, allowing those claims to move forward.

It is among the most consequential legal threats he faces.

Trump entered the presidency on the heels of a major Supreme Court win that found former presidents have criminal and civil immunity for official acts during their term.

But Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta deemed Trump’s Jan. 6 speech — in which he directed supporters to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell” — was a political act, not a presidential one, and therefore not shielded by immunity.

“President Trump has not shown that the speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties. The content of the ellipse speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity,” Mehta wrote.

The week ended with yet another setback for Trump when a federal judge on Friday blocked the administration from forcing universities to submit extensive data on applicants and students to prove they don’t illegally consider race in admissions.

Reading the losses

For Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA who has tracked the administration’s legal battles closely, the losing streak had a clear through line.

“It was an awful week for Donald Trump,” he said. “It’s not that the courts are anti-Trump. In fact, he wins a lot. It’s really that he takes such an aggressive approach to policy making that he runs afoul of existing precedents.”

Taken together, last week’s rulings signaled that the courts are insisting that the president is as accountable for his actions as anyone, and that states have constitutional powers he alone cannot override.

“The Trump administration’s recent court losses illustrate that there is still much that the other branches of government can do — in connection with civil society — to uphold the rule of law and mitigate the harms of the administration’s destructive agenda,” said Monika Langarica, deputy legal director at the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.

“They are one more reminder,” she added, “that the administration will not always have the last word with respect to its unlawful and unconstitutional actions.”

The Metropolitan police said the three men were charged with arson ‘being reckless as to whether life would be endangered’. 

Two British nationals and one UK-Pakistani national have been remanded in custody after they appeared in a court charged with arson in relation to four ambulances owned by a Jewish charity in London that were torched.

The March 23 attack in Golders Green, an area of North London with a large Jewish community, destroyed four ambulances belonging to the volunteer organisation Hatzola.

Two of the suspects were identified by police on Saturday as British nationals, Hamza Iqbal, 20, and Rehan Khan, 19. The third suspect, a 17-year-old UK-Pakistani dual national, cannnot be named for legal reasons.

According to a statement by the Metropolitan Police, the three suspects, who had been arrested at different locations in East London on Wednesday, were charged with arson and “being reckless as to whether life would be endangered”.

The suspects did not enter a plea in a 45-minute appearance at the Westminster Magistrates Court.

The court heard that British police also arrested a fourth person in connection with the arson attack.

‘Deeply shocking’

The ambulances that were set on fire were run by Hatzola, a volunteer organisation which provides free medical transportation and emergency response primarily for the Orthodox Jewish community.

According to the London Fire Brigade, the explosions from cylinders on the vehicles had shattered nearby windows, but no one was injured.

Since the fire, the police have promised to increase security around Jewish community sites across the capital.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer described the incident as a “deeply shocking antisemitic arson attack”.

The police have said they are treating the incident as an anti-Semitic hate crime. So far, the incident has not been declared a “terror offence”, but counterterrorism officers are leading the investigation.

The three defendants are set to appear at London’s Central Criminal Court, better known as the Old Bailey, on April 24.

The Iran-aligned Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya (HAYI) group claimed responsibility for the attack. It has also previously claimed responsibility for similar attacks in Belgium and the Netherlands.

A United States federal judge has once again batted down a pair of subpoenas from the administration of President Donald Trump seeking information about Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, the country’s central bank.

In a brief, six-page opinion published on Friday, Judge James Boasberg rejected the Department of Justice’s motion to reconsider his earlier ruling rejecting the subpoenas.

“The Government’s arguments do not come close to convincing the Court that a different outcome is warranted,” Boasberg wrote.

On March 13, Boasberg, a judge for the federal court in the District of Columbia, nullified the subpoenas on the basis that they were issued for an “improper purpose”: to pressure Powell into compliance with the president’s demands.

Trump and Powell — an appointee from the president’s first term — have been at loggerheads since the Republican leader returned to the White House in January 2025.

Although the Federal Reserve is an independent government agency, not subject to political demands, Trump has repeatedly called on the bank to slash interest rates, and he has denounced Powell as “incompetent”, “crooked” and a “fool” for not following suit.

For months, pressure had been building from the Trump White House to investigate Powell and push him prematurely from his job as Federal Reserve chair. Powell’s term is slated to expire in May.

Much of the Trump administration’s focus has fallen on renovations to the Federal Reserve’s historic 1930s buildings in Washington, DC, which have gone over budget.

The administration has pointed to the cost overruns as evidence of malfeasance.

Last July, for instance, Trump appointee William Pulte called on Congress to investigate Powell for “political bias” and “deceptive” testimony related to the renovation project.

The following month, Trump posted on his platform Truth Social that he was considering “a major lawsuit against Powell” in response to “horrible, and grossly incompetent” work on the renovations.

The pressure reached a climax on January 11, when Powell made a rare statement announcing he was under a Justice Department investigation over the renovation project. He dismissed the probe as a “pretext” to undermine the Federal Reserve’s leadership over monetary policy.

“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” Powell said.

The Federal Reserve has since sought to have the subpoenas into Powell’s behaviour tossed.

Boasberg sided with the central bank in his initial ruling, and in Friday’s opinion, he called the Trump administration’s efforts to change his mind insufficient.

The Justice Department had argued that it does not need to produce evidence of a crime to seek a grand jury subpoena.

Boasberg agreed with that point, but he said subpoenas were also subject to a legal standard that bars them from being issued for “improper” purposes.

“The subpoena power ‘is not unlimited’ and may not be abused,” Boasberg wrote, citing court precedent.

He therefore ruled that the lack of evidence overall against Powell was relevant to the legality of the subpoenas.

“The controlling legal question is what these ‘subpoena[s’] dominant purpose’ is: pressuring Powell to lower rates or resign, or pursuing a legitimate investigation opened because the facts suggested wrongdoing,” Boasberg said.

“Resolving that question requires probing whether the Government’s asserted basis for the subpoenas — suspicions of fraud and lying to Congress — is colorable or tenuous. That inquiry, in turn, means asking how much evidence there is to back up the Government’s assertions.”

Boasberg underscored that he has seen no suggestion that Powell committed criminal wrongdoing and pointed to the long list of statements Trump has made attacking the Federal Reserve chair, suggesting an ulterior motive.

“The Government’s fundamental problem is that it has presented no evidence whatsoever of fraud,” he concluded.

Friday’s ruling is likely to set the stage for the Trump administration to appeal. US Attorney Jeanine Pirro has previously denied any political motivation for the investigation.

She has also asserted that Boasberg is “without legal authority” to nullify the subpoenas.

BLAKE Lively has broken her silence after a judge threw out most of her claims against Justin Baldoni.

Ten of the 13 claims Lively, 38, filed against Baldoni, 42, were thrown out on Thursday, April 2, by a judge.

The claims relating to harassment, defamation and conspiracy follow conflict while the pair filmed the 2024 Colleen Hoover adaptation It Ends With Us.

The remaining claims against Baldoni’s company Wayfarer Studios, which include breach of contract and retaliation, will move forward to trial.

“This case has always been and will remain focused on the devasting [sic] retaliation and the extraordinary steps the defendants took to destroy Blake Lively’s reputation because she stood up for safety on the set and that is the case that is going to trial,” said Sigrid McCawley, member of Lively’s legal team, told PEOPLE.

“For Blake Lively, the greatest measure of justice is that the people and the playbook behind these coordinated digital attacks have been exposed and are already being held accountable by other women they’ve targeted.

“She looks forward to testifying at trial and continuing to shine a light on this vicious form of online retaliation so that it becomes easier to detect and fight.”

District Judge Lewis Liman said Lively sued under California law but the alleged wrongful conduct took place elsewhere.

He also cited other issues in the cases, such as the fact that Lively had not signed an agreement that would have governed sexual harassment on set.

The judge said the actress could pursue her retaliation claims, among others, against Baldoni’s studio.

“Sexual harassment isn’t going forward not because the defendants did nothing wrong but because the court determined Blake Lively was an independent contractor, not an employee, said McCawley.

Justin Baldoni responds to judge throwing out case

“We’re very pleased the Court dismissed all sexual harassment claims and every claim brought against the individual defendants: Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel,” said Baldoni’s attorneys, Alexandra Shapiro and Jonathan Bach to The Daily Mail.

“These were very serious allegations, and we are grateful to the Court for its careful review of the facts, law and voluminous evidence that was provided.

“What’s left is a significantly narrowed case, and we look forward to presenting our defense to the remaining claims in court.”

Lively claimed that Baldoni kissed her during a scene where the script didn’t call for it and said he entered her trailer while she breastfed.

The actress also claimed that Baldoni tried to harm her reputation after she asserted he had created a problematic work environment.

Baldoni claimed Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, tried to tarnish his reputation, engaged in extortion, and hijacked creative control of the romance film.

Baldoni’s $400 million defamation lawsuit against Blake was dismissed by a judge in November.

The pair will now appear in court on May 18 in New York.

Legal representatives for both have said Baldoni and Lively both plan to testify.

BLAKE Lively’s sexual harassment lawsuit against Justin Baldoni has been dismissed, just weeks before going to trial.

The actress alleged that her It Ends with Us co-star and director, Justin, engaged in inappropriate conduct during filming.

On Thursday, a judge threw out her sexual harassment claims, according to TMZ, which broke the story.

However, Blake’s numerous other allegations, including retaliation, will go to trial next month.

The Gossip Girl alum claimed that Justin attempted to harm her reputation after she asserted he had created a problematic work environment.

Meanwhile, Justin alleged that Blake and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, tried to tarnish his reputation, engaged in extortion, and hijacked creative control of the romance film.

Read More on Blake Lively

WEDDING FEARS

Travis ‘stressed’ Taylor wedding may be CANCELED if dragged into Blake trial

He initially filed a $400 million defamation lawsuit against Blake, though that was dismissed by a judge in November.

Blake and Justin are set to appear in court on May 18.

The legal dispute has also involved Blake’s BFF, Taylor Swift, and is reported to have caused tension between the two.

In January, The U.S. Sun exclusively revealed that Taylor’s upcoming wedding to NFL star Travis Kelce could be impacted by Blake’s ongoing court battle with Justin.

Shocking personal texts between Taylor and Blake discussing Blake’s challenges with Justin were unsealed in the lawsuit.

According to TMZ, the singer could be called as a hostile witness for the defense in court, which is scheduled to take place shortly before her fairytale wedding to Travis.

The U.S. Sun exclusively revealed that Travis has urged Taylor to distance herself from the situation and to set firm boundaries.

Blake and Justin’s feud began when they started filming It Ends with Us in May 2023, in which they played love interests.

The movie premiered in August 2024, and Blake made her complaint about Justin’s behavior shortly after.

At the time of publishing, neither Blake nor Justin has commented on the dismissal.

Last week, Blake shared an Instagram post about her “emotional roller coaster” after traveling to Wales to watch Wrexham AFC play.

Her husband, Ryan, has co-owned the team with fellow actor Rob McElhenney since 2021.

Blake posted a slideshow of photos of her smiling at various locations during the trip.

Former clerk Tina Peters has become a cause celebre for the election denial movement and President Donald Trump.

An appeals court in the state of Colorado has ordered the resentencing of Tina Peters, a former county clerk convicted of involvement in an election meddling scheme in the United States.

The court overturned Peters’s nine-year prison sentence on Thursday, but not her conviction for helping to tamper with voting machines after the 2020 presidential race.

Her case has become a cause celebre for President Donald Trump and the election denial movement, after it emerged that she was seeking evidence to support Trump’s false claim that his 2020 loss was due to massive fraud.

In Thursday’s decision, the three-judge appeals panel ruled that a lower court had considered Peters’s personal beliefs when deciding upon a punishment, thereby rendering the sentence improper.

“The trial court’s comments about Peters’s belief in the existence of 2020 election fraud went beyond relevant considerations for her sentencing,” the appeals court wrote.

The panel cited comments from Judge Matthew Barrett, who blasted Peters as a “charlatan” promoting “snake oil” claims.

“Her offence was not her belief, however misguided the trial court deemed it to be, in the existence of such election fraud,” the appeals court said. “It was her deceitful actions in her attempt to gather evidence of such fraud.”

Peters was convicted in August 2024 for helping someone from outside the government gain access to the Mesa County election system and make copies.

That person was affiliated with efforts to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss, and the copies they obtained were then shared on social media.

False claims that the 2020 election was marred by massive fraud have been a persistent fixation for Trump and his allies, even after his successful re-election in 2024.

Trump’s efforts to remain in office after his 2020 defeat were the subject of a 2023 criminal indictment brought by former special counsel Jack Smith.

He alleged that Trump led a criminal conspiracy to undermine the election process and rally supporters to overturn the results. Those charges, however, were ultimately dropped when Trump took office again in 2025, as the US Justice Department has a policy against prosecuting sitting presidents.

Since his inauguration, Trump has continued to push the claims he won the 2020 race. He has also used his allegations of fraud to demand greater control over the country’s election infrastructure in advance of the upcoming 2026 midterm elections.

In December, the president pardoned Peters, even though she was not in federal custody, and the presidential power of pardon does not extend to state crimes.

The appeals court panel confirmed on Thursday that Trump’s pardon had no impact on state offences.

“We have found no instance where the presidential pardon power has been stretched in such a way as to invade an individual state’s sovereignty,” the panel said.

State Governor Jared Polis suggested last month that he could consider clemency for Peters.

Legal groups in Uganda have announced that a dozen deportees from the United States are expected to land in the country, following a deal with President Donald Trump.

On Thursday, the Uganda Law Society and the East Africa Law Society announced they had gone to court to challenge the deportation, which they called “an undignified, harrowing and dehumanising process”.

“We have approached the Courts of Law in Uganda and the region, seeking bespoke reliefs designed to arrest this patent international illegality,” Asiimwe Anthony, the vice president of the Uganda Law Society, wrote in a statement.

“Our perspective of the matter is broader than a single act of deportation. We view it as but one gust from the ill winds of transnational repression that are blowing across our world.”

Thursday’s deportation marks the first confirmed instance of deportees being transferred from the US to Uganda.

The 12 people reportedly landed at the Entebbe International Airport, some 40 kilometres (25 miles) from Kampala, by private aircraft. No identifying information was provided about the deportees.

But the deportation is the latest example of Trump’s far-reaching efforts to offload immigrants to “third countries”, where they have no personal connections — and may not even know the language.

Scrutiny of third country deportations

So far, Trump has struck deals with a number of countries to accept deported foreigners. They include at least six African countries, among them Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Rwanda, Eswatini and South Sudan.

The deal with Uganda came to light last August. The country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the agreement was a “temporary arrangement” and that priority would be given to deportees from other African countries.

Unaccompanied children and people with criminal records would not be allowed under the deal, according to the ministry’s statement at the time.

It is unclear whether Uganda received payment for its decision to accept third-country deportations.

Other countries, though, have signed multimillion-dollar deals. El Salvador was given nearly $6m to imprison deportees from the US, Equatorial Guinea got $7.5m, and Eswatini nabbed $5.1m.

There is no official estimate about the total cost of these third-country deals, but Senate Democrats in the US have estimated that at least $40m in funding has been given as incentives for countries to accept deportations.

Most of those funds, the Democrats added, were disbursed in lump sums before any deportees arrived. They also note that those funds are separate from the additional costs of the deportation flights: US military aircraft can cost $32,000 per hour to operate.

“Through its third country deportation deals, the Trump Administration is putting millions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of foreign governments, while turning a blind eye to the human costs,” Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen said in a February statement.

“For an Administration that claims to be reigning in fraud, waste and abuse, this policy is the epitome of all three.”

Critics have also questioned whether the countries receiving US deportees are adequately safe.

In the past, the US has criticised Uganda for “significant human rights abuses”, citing reports of extrajudicial killings, life-threatening prison conditions, and torture and other degrading treatment from government agencies.

It also noted that Uganda had government restrictions against human rights and civil society organisations, and that consensual same-sex conduct was outlawed.

According to the United Nations, Uganda already plays host to nearly 1.7 million refugees and asylum seekers, as people flee violence in neighbouring countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and South Sudan.

An ‘authoritarian project’?

In his letter on Thursday, Anthony, the vice president of the Uganda Law Society, called the US deportations part of a “broader authoritarian project” that his group felt compelled to oppose.

“This development and the attendant illegalities that accompany it are reminiscent of a dark past that the global family of humanity supposedly put behind itself in the pursuit of the ideal that every human being is born equal,” Anthony wrote.

He added that US actions under Trump were paving the way for similar policies elsewhere.

“In the United States, the militarisation of society has given carte blanche to captured democracies in Africa to carry on with despotism unchecked,” he said.

Still, the Trump administration has defended the deportations as legal under the US Immigration and Nationality Act, which has loopholes for removals to “safe third countries”.

The Trump administration has also pointed to diplomatic assurances from the “third countries” in question that US deportees would not face persecution.

The “third-country” policy has, however, faced numerous legal challenges. While the US Supreme Court has largely let such removals proceed, a lower court once again ruled in February that the policy could infringe upon immigrants’ due process rights.

In the case of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, lawyers have even argued that his deportation to a country far from home was evidence of “vindictiveness” on the part of the Trump administration.

Uganda has been floated as one of the destinations for Garcia, who was wrongfully deported in March 2025 and then returned to the US in June, only to face deportation proceedings once more.

Trump has pushed an aggressive programme of mass deportation since returning to the White House for a second term in 2025.

At least 675,000 people have been removed under his administration as of January, according to US government statistics.

SCOTT Mills was first investigated over sex offences against a teenage boy seven years ago – but only now the BBC has acted.

In a sensational move the BBC pulled Mills off air last Tuesday – with it emerging days later that the axing was linked to a complaint about the 2018 probe into the 53-year-old.

Mills was questioned over allegations of “serious sexual offences” against a boy who police confirmed was under 16 at the time of the allegations.

The case – said to have taken place between 1997 and 2000 – was later dropped in full due to a lack of evidence.

Last night we revealed that BBC bosses had known Mills was being investigated in 2018, Mills informed the corporation but denied the allegations.

And, in March that year The Sun on Sunday revealed how a probe was being carried out into an unnamed radio presenter.

DARK DAYS

Scott Mills’ troubled Radio 1 years that saw star go on-air drunk after tragedy

SCOTT SHOCK

Teen boy at centre of Scott Mills ‘sex offences’ probe was under 16, cops say

Officials decided to keep Mills on air for seven years after he informed them of the investigation before suddenly dismissing him on Monday.

It was only after a complaint was made regarding the police probe that Beeb bosses gave Mills the boot.

Mills’ £360,000 a year contract was terminated within five days of the complaint being made.

But the BBC has since apologised for not taking action on an allegation against Scott Mills raised last year. So, as the scandal unfolds, here is what was known and when.

1997 – 2000

The alleged “serious sexual offences” against a boy under 16 take place with Scott Mills joining the BBC in 1988.

Mills initially joined the corporation as a presenter on BBC Radio 1, presenting the early morning slot before earning his own namesake programme The Scott Mills Show.

December 2016

The Metropolitan Police launch a probe into allegations regarding Scott Mills.

The investigation, which related to allegations of serious sexual offences, followed a referral from another police force.

July 2018

Mills is questioned by police under caution about historical sexual offences against a teenage boy.

The former BBC Radio 2 star told the corporation about the investigation and denied the allegations.

May 2019

After it was decided there wasn’t enough evidence to bring charges against Mills the investigation is closed.

The case was dropped in full.

October 2022

Mills moved from BBC Radio 1 and joined BBC Radio 2, taking over the coveted afternoon slot from Steve Wright.

January 2025

Mills then moves on to take over the Radio 2 Breakfast Show, where he would stay until he was dismissed.

The former presenter took over after Zoe Ball stepped down — calling the role his “dream job”.

March 24, 2026

Mills signs off his show with “see you tomorrow” with his slot taken over the next day by Gary Davies.

Davies would continue to fill in for Scott after being named as the interim breakfast show host.

March 25, 2026

A BBC investigation is launched following a complaint regarding Scott Mills and the historic police probe.

March 30, 2026

In a sensational story, it is announced Mills had been sacked by the Beeb.

BBC Director of Music Lorna Clarke circulates an internal letter to staff informing them of the sacking.

March 31, 2026

The Metropolitan Police confirm that the teen boy at the centre of the allegations was under 16 years old at the time of the alleged offences.

April 1, 2026

The Sun reveals that the BBC was aware of the investigation as far back as 2018.

We revealed how Mills told the corporation in 2018 but was kept on air for another 7 years before suddenly being fired.

BBC bosses were tonight urged to say why they kept Scott Mills on air while he was probed for sex offences with a boy under 16, only to fire him seven years later.

The Beeb also remain tight-lipped over what changed since their original decision not to act — knowing the star, 53, had been quizzed under caution between 2018 and 2019.

The allegations are reported to relate to events between 1997 and 2000, when Mills was in his 20s.

At the weekend, he was sacked as the £360,000-a-year host of Radio 2’s Breakfast Show following a second probe.

Broadcasters and MPs demanded answers over the latest of multiple scandals to rock the corporation in recent years.

TV presenter Piers Morgan said: “I don’t understand. He was investigated by police 10yrs ago over alleged offences 25+ years ago, but no action was taken and case was closed.

all change

Scott Mills Bridge at M3 service station ‘set to be renamed’ after BBC sacking

JANE MOORE

Scott Mills was dropped like a hot cake – but what evidence does Beeb have?

“Now he gets instantly fired over same thing? The BBC needs to explain why, surely?”

Insiders have claimed the BBC moved swiftly over Mills following criticism they were slow to act over shamed newsreader Huw Edwards.

Discussing the cases yesterday Radio 2 host Jeremy Vine said: “There is a thought here they decided to treat Scott how they wish they’d treated Huw. Which would be a bit unfair would it not?

“Regarding the inconsistency here, we were told Huw Edwards couldn’t be sacked because he was in a fragile mental state, everything I have read about Scott’s history today goes back to his own anxiety and depression and everything else but there doesn’t seem to be the same break cut for him.”

Tory Shadow Crime Minister Matt Vickers told The Sun: “This pattern of failure by the BBC is letting the public down whilst the institution continues to protect its own ­reputation over addressing serious internal concerns.

“Time and again, the public are asked to place their trust in an institution that too often seems unwilling to come clean when it matters most.

“For a broadcaster funded by the public and serving audiences of all ages, any failure to act on safeguarding concerns is unacceptable.”

Mills joined Radio 1 in 1998. Allegations about him were first reported to Hampshire Police by a third party in 2012.

The force logged the details and later passed on information to the Met’s Operation Winter Key.

In December 2016 Winter Key cops launched an investigation.

At that time, Mills was the Drivetime DJ for Radio 1 and hosted the Official Chart Show, which has a target age range of 15-plus.

Mills was interviewed under caution in July 2018 and denied the claims against him.

In March that year The Sun on Sunday revealed how an investigation was being carried out into an unnamed radio presenter.

A file was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, which ruled there was insufficient evidence to charge. The investigation was then closed in May 2019.

BBC bosses, including Ben Cooper, the then-controller of Radio 1 and 1Xtra, chose not to take Mills off air despite the investigation.

A source said: “The BBC knew Scott had been questioned by police, he told them.

“Scott said he denied the allegations that had been made against him. Ben stood by Scott and allowed him to continue working while the police investigated.

“Given how serious the complaint was, it raises questions about why the BBC decided to keep him on air on Radio 1 — whose target audience is teenagers — rather than removing him while the police continued the investigation.”

Mr Cooper left his position as the controller of Radio 1 in 2020 after nine years.

Yesterday the Met issued a new statement and confirmed: “In December 2016, the Met began an investigation following a referral from another police force.

“The investigation related to allegations of serious sexual offences against a teenage boy. These were reported to have taken place between 1997 and 2000.

“As part of these enquiries, a man who was in his 40s at the time of the interview, was questioned by police under caution in July 2018.

“A full file of evidence was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, who determined the evidential threshold had not been met to bring charges.

“Following this advice, the investigation was closed in May 2019.”

The Sun understands the BBC launched its latest probe after the complaint was raised with the corporation again.

A source said: “The BBC’s second probe into this saw them speaking to Scott, as well as individuals with knowledge of Scott’s dealings with the police in 2018.

“Whatever they discovered this time around clearly was treated more seriously, or given more credence than when it was first discussed with Scott in 2018, as this time they decided to sack him.”

Insiders at the BBC also pointed to Channel 5’s documentary, Power: The Downfall of Huw Edwards, as a possible reason for the complainant to contact the BBC.

The 90-minute film, screened last week, saw Martin Clunes take on the role of convicted paedophile Edwards, who pleaded guilty in 2024 to three counts of making indecent images of children.

It came after The Sun revealed Edwards paid a teenager thousands of pounds for explicit images.

The source added: “With the timing of the Huw film it makes sense why the person at the centre of the original (Mills) complaint may have decided to speak to the BBC again.

“Many in the BBC are saying the timing doesn’t feel like a coincidence.

“The drama showed actions do have consequences.” Separately, The Telegraph reported former BBC presenter Anna Brees contacted the Beeb in May 2025 to say she had received information about alleged “inappropriate communications” involving Mills.

She also asked whether the BBC had ever received any “formal or informal complaints” about Mills “relating to safeguarding, inappropriate conduct or harassment” and whether it had ever conducted an internal investigation into him.

She did not receive a response. The BBC admitted her information “should have been followed up and we should have asked further questions”.

There is no suggestion the inquiries by Ms Brees related to the same alleged victim whose complaint to the police led to Mills being questioned in 2018.

BBC bosses were left with “no choice” but to sack Mills after being passed compelling new information, it was claimed last night.

The Mirror reported the fresh details are different to the claims probed by police in 2016 but relate to the same complainant.

Mills, who is married to Sam Vaughan and lives in London, is understood not to have spoken to colleagues or pals since being axed.

The BBC have removed him from a Race Across The World podcast and pulled scenes he filmed for EastEnders.

Yesterday charity Neuroblastoma UK dropped him as a patron. Dermot O’Leary who hosts the Saturday morning Breakfast Show, said yesterday: “This was a shock to everyone. It came from nowhere.”

Gary Davies is sitting in for Mills today and tomorrow before OJ Borg takes on the Breakfast Show on Bank Holiday Friday and Monday.

Insiders said the BBC were now discussing who would take over the Breakfast Show – which in the latest round of Rajar figures in February revealed Mills had 6.5million listeners.

District Judge Richard Leon says construction has to stop until Congress provides statutory authorisation.

A judge has ruled that US President Donald Trump cannot proceed with his planned $400m ballroom on the site of the White House’s demolished East Wing without approval from Congress.

District Judge Richard Leon on Tuesday granted a request for a preliminary injunction filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which sued after alleging Trump had exceeded his authority by razing the historic East Wing and launching construction on the new building.

“I have concluded that the National Trust is likely to succeed on the merits because no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have,” Leon, an appointee of former Republican President George W Bush, wrote in the ruling.

“The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” he said. “Unless and until Congress blesses this project through statutory authorization, construction has to stop!”

Leon said the order does not affect “construction necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House”.

His ruling keeps the 90,000 square-foot (8,360 square-metre) ballroom project on hold while the lawsuit continues.

The judge said he was pausing his order for 14 days to allow the ⁠Trump administration to appeal. Hours later, the Justice Department filed an appeal at the Washington, DC-based US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Carol Quillen, president and CEO of the National Trust, welcomed Leon’s ruling.

“This is a win for the American people on a project that forever impacts one of the most beloved and iconic places in our nation,” Quillen said in a statement.

In a social media post, Trump called the National Trust a group of left-wing “lunatics” and said his ballroom is “under budget, ahead of schedule, being built at no cost to the Taxpayer, and will be the finest Building of its kind anywhere in the World”.

The Republican has championed the ballroom as a defining addition to the White House and a lasting symbol of his presidency.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco says he’d like to be our governor, but more and more, it’s looking to me like the real goal for the far-right provocateur is just to be MAGA-famous.

That’s cool. That’s fine. Honestly, who in Southern California hasn’t dreamed of their 15 minutes? And he certainly has the cop-stache to play the role of rogue Wild West lawman.

But Bianco’s bid for celebrity may help extremists take down American elections, and that is a problem — one California needs to deal with quickly, before the midterms suffer from his antics. There are two separate issues at play here, both of which state courts will be asked to weigh in on in coming days — Bianco apparently is putting his so-called investigation on hold until those cases bring some measure of clarity, and hopefully sanity.

First, are California sheriffs answerable to anyone, or are they a law unto themselves? Second, who in California can legally handle and count ballots according to law, if state law does in fact matter?

The fact that these two issues are coming up now — together— is no accident. President Trump’s election fraud claims have been moving toward this moment for years, largely out of the consciousness of mainstream voters, but very much intentionally pushed by those who would like to see MAGA officials remain in power, even at the cost of democracy.

The real question being answered right now in Riverside — the one we should all be clear on — is, if Republicans want to invalidate election results that don’t go their way this November, what’s the nitty-gritty of actually doing that?

Bianco is attempting an answer.

“This is about more than just what Sheriff Bianco is doing,” said Matt Barreto, faculty director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “… It shouldn’t happen. And again, it doesn’t matter if Democrats are winning or Republicans are winning, no sheriff should come in and take over possession or counting of ballots.”

By now, you’ve probably heard that Bianco has obtained multiple secret, sealed search warrants from a buddy judge that allowed him to spirit away hundreds of thousands of ballots in his county from November’s Proposition 50 election.

Bianco claims he has the right to seize these ballots and investigate as he sees fit — and it’s not our business or anyone else’s, not even state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who ordered Bianco to stop what he was doing until Bonta could review it.

Bianco has largely ignored that order, instead scooping up even more ballots late last week — all but giving Bonta a certain finger reserved for simple communication. Fox News loved it. Bianco’s admission Monday that he is pausing his effort is the first hint that even he may see he’s gone too far.

But Bianco’s hubris is in line with the attitude of many so-called constitutional sheriffs, a national movement by some far-right elected lawmen that Bianco has been associated with, though he’s never claimed outright affinity.

These extremist sheriffs misguidedly believe that they are above both state and federal law, and get to decide for themselves what’s constitutional or not in their jurisdictions — and therefore what’s law and what’s not.

Since about 2020, empowered by successes in ignoring pandemic restrictions, these sheriffs have dived deeper and deeper into the election fraud movement that Trump loves so much, claiming increasing rights to investigate alleged fraud. Though their national organization doesn’t publish its membership list, media and other tracking show there are at minimum dozens of these like-minded lawmen across the country, likely closely watching Riverside County.

Some election experts now worry that if Bianco is successful in the courts in retaining the right to take ballots, it will give a dangerous legal precedent that empowers other constitutional sheriffs to do the same at the midterms. Only then it would be fresh, uncounted ballots — leaving these far-right sheriffs in charge of providing results instead of trained, trusted elections officials.

“What happens if the ballots have not been properly counted by the right people yet and a sheriff decides they want to go confiscate them?” said Chad Dunn, co-founder of UCLA’s Voting Rights Project and the trial lawyer who successfully halted Texas’ gerrymandering effort, for now anyway.

“Once the chain of custody … is broken, as they have been with these, you’ll never count them in a way that you’ll be able to get reasonable confidence from the public,” Dunn said. “It puts the entire election process in jeopardy.”

The constitutional sheriffs would become the boots on the ground for Trump’s election deniers to implement their will, seizing ballots as they see fit and creating such a crisis of confidence that it’s likely we the voters would never accept the results, Republican or Democrat.

It could even give Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson a plausible reason — an ongoing fraud investigation — not to seat elected Democrats, stalling as he did with Arizona’s Adelita Grijalva last year after she won a special election.

The Voting Rights Project, along with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, filed a lawsuit last week asking the state Supreme Court to uphold the laws that govern how ballots are handled in California — basically protecting that chain of custody and making it clear sheriffs can’t ignore it and are not part of it.

“They do not, under California law, have the right to take ballots away from the Registrar of Voters, and they do not, under California law, have the right to count or handle ballots,” Barreto said. “There’s no question that it violates California election law.”

Separately, Bonta’s office filed its own action, with that issue of constitutional sheriffs front and center. Bonta is asking courts to tell Bianco that he’s not a law unto himself, and does in fact answer to the state attorney general.

This issue of whether sheriffs have any legal duty to listen to the state’s top law enforcement officer has long been one of Bonta’s fights — he argued about it with then-L.A. Sheriff Alex Villanueva in another public corruption fiasco over then-L.A. County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl.

I’m guessing Bianco will refer Bonta back to that simple communication of a single finger, much the same as Villanueva did.

But it’s long past time that the state decide just how powerful sheriffs are, for the good of the country this time. The state Legislature has repeatedly kicked the can on clarifying the issue, a failure on their part.

Legislators could amend the state Constitution to make sheriffs appointed instead of elected — the same as police chiefs. Then boards of supervisors could hire and fire them just like other law enforcement leaders.

With the Legislature’s resounding absence on the issue, we have to rely on courts. That’s likely to be a long battle.

In the meantime, Bianco is up to his mustache in attention. This has become a national story, boosting his profile throughout the MAGA-verse as a champion of election deniers everywhere.

Whether Bianco wins or loses these legal battles, resumes his investigation or not, he’s won the attention battle — he’s even polling at the top in the gubernatorial race, thanks to the 8 million Democrats who refuse to drop out.

Riverside County, once as red as it comes, is increasingly purple, Barreto points out. Bianco’s tenure as elected sheriff may not last forever. His shot at governor, despite the polls, is unlikely.

But maybe Fox News will be so impressed with his aggressive rants that he’ll get an offer. Maybe Trump, known for watching it, will like what he sees. So many possibilities from the publicity.

And so much real damage to democracy.

COMIC Russell Brand’s rape trial has been delayed by four months and is expected to last eight weeks — up from five — due to “numerous” and expanded charges.

The screen star, 50, faces three counts of rape, three of sexual assault and one indecent assault against six women from 1999 to 2009.

Brand — who denies all the charges in full — was facing trial at Southwark crown court on June 12.

But Mr Justice Joel Bennathan KC put it back until October 12.

He noted an eight-week trial in June would run into August — with potential summer holiday and travel interruptions.

Brand, of Hambleden, Bucks, didn’t attend court today.

read more on russell brand

STAR IN DOCK

Russell Brand has bible confiscated as he denies fresh offences including rape

BRAND TRIAL

Russell Brand to face court in US over ‘sexual assault’ allegations

Brand had appeared in court last month and denied charges of rape and sexual assault against two women in 2009.

Before the hearing, Brand took out a copy of the bible and began reading it but it was confiscated by the dock officer until the case was done.

The Met Police launched a probe into the TV presenter in September 2023 after The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches published an investigation into allegations over his treatment of women.

Following the charge, Brand told his 11.3million X followers that he was “never a rapist”.

He added: “I’ve always told you guys that when I was young and single, before I had a wife and family… I was a fool, man.

“I was a fool before I lived in the light of the Lord… I have never engaged in non consensual activity, I pray you can see that by looking in my eyes.”

Brand, who was previously married to pop star Katy Perry, shares three children with his wife, Laura Gallacher, 37.

A BITTERLY fought five-year dispute between an EastEnders star, his wife and their neighbours over a dog bite on a Lord’s estate has finally ended.

TV actor and film star John Blundell and his wife Mercina were locked in a bitter legal fight with neighbouring lodge owners Alison and Andrew Girdiefski after the row over their tiny pooch Ziggy.

The Sun can now confirm that Mercina and John have finally seen a closure in their favour, with an out of court payment after bringing a civil court case.

John – who also starred in Quadrophenia and Scum – and his wife are understood to be delighted by the result.

The long-running saga dates back to 2021 at the plush Fritton Lake estate in Norfolk, a 5,000-acre retreat owned by aristocrats Hugh and Lara Crossley, Lord and Lady Somerleyton.

Lord Somerleyton, at the height of tension, even attempted to mediate between the two warring couples, The Sun understands.

DUST EMPIRE

Ayatollah has £200m of luxury property in UK – as MPs call for it to be SEIZED

POSHO PLIGHT

UK’s ‘most exclusive estate’ turning into ghost town as mansions fall to ruin

The row all kicked off when Mercina had been visiting her neighbours’ lodge to admire renovation work when she says their small hairless Chinese crested dog, Ziggy, suddenly bit her on the wrist.

The attack, they claimed, left her with a half an in inch wound that later scarred, with the actor’s wife needing hospital treatment.

With the row spiralling out of control – John and Mercina then launched a civil case at Norwich County Court seeking damages.

The Sun has now confirmed the long-running dispute has been settled out of court.

It brings to an end to years of acrimony.

Court officials told The Sun the matter was settled out of court using a Part 36 offer – a formal settlement under the law.

A source close to the couple told us: “While the couple are selling their property at Fritton they are reluctant to talk.

“It has been a very difficult few years for the Blundell’s, who really have done nothing wrong at all.”

Back in 2021, what should have been a tranquil countryside getaway quickly spiralled into a toxic feud involving police, lawyers and estate bosses.

Relations between the couples then soured dramatically.

The dispute even drew in Norfolk Police, with officers speaking to both sides.

Ziggy was added to a register of dangerous dogs, but no further action was taken due to the time elapsed.

Complaints of harassment were also investigated by Norfolk Police – but no offences were ultimately found.

Mercina also accused the pair of taunting them by singing “who let the dogs out” and filming them nearby.

Frustrated, the Blundells launched civil action – setting them for a court showdown.

The pair even recruited James McNally – known as “The Dog Bite Solicitor” who specialises in getting civil damages on dog attacks.

The Blundells said at the time they had been quoted £1,500 for a plastic surgeon to fix Mercina’s wrist – and were believed to be seeking up to £30k in costs and damages.

And the Girdiefskis had said ahead of the looming case that they found the figures “ridiculous”.

“The sort of money you would expect to be paying somebody who has had their face ripped off by a dog, not this mere 1.2cm cut,” said Alison in July 2025.

Speaking at the time, she added: “From day one, we have accepted responsibility.

“Our Ziggy did bite Mercina and we have never denied this.”

But the dramatic court clash never happened after the Girdiefskis agreed to settle.

A court spokesperson said: “This case was settled out of court by way of accepting a Part 36 offer, therefore there is no final order or settlement details to provide.

“Both sides had solicitors so in the end the court was not involved.”

John said the retreat, meant to be a peaceful escape, had instead become “a living nightmare”.

Both couples are now trying to sell their lodges on the exclusive estate.

The Girdiefski’s and Blundells have been approached for comment.

The Sun have also contacted Lord Somerleyton.

ACTRESS Rosalind Halstead has admitted drink driving at nearly four times the limit.

The star, 41 — married to Emmerdale’s Chris Coghill who plays Kev Townsend in the ITV soap — was arrested near their home.

A breathalyser test found her alcohol level was 138 micrograms. The legal limit is 35mg.

She was driving her 2003 Jaguar X-Type without insurance when she was stopped in Haringey, North London.

She admitted both charges at Highbury magistrates’ court and could face up to six months in jail when she is sentenced next month.

JPs also slapped her with an interim driving disqualification.

BARGAIN BOP

Former Corrie star Adam Rickitt performing £8 bar gig 27 years after pop heyday

HITTING BACK

BBC deny Thomas Skinner’s claim he was paid £2,000 for Question Time

Rosalind appeared in Hugh Grant‘s 2004 comedy Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason, and 2005 musical Mrs Henderson Presents fronted by Judi Dench.

She went on to star in ITV’s 2009 Wuthering Heights alongside Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley.

The actress has also starred in BBC series Sherlock in A Scandal in Belgravia, and BBC drama Holby City.

She most recently featured in Star Wars spin-off series Andor.

A United States judge has said that he will not dismiss the drug-trafficking and weapons possession charges brought against former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores.

But in a Thursday court hearing, Judge Alvin Hellerstein questioned whether the US government has the right to bar Venezuela from funding Maduro’s legal expenses.

The hearing was the first for Maduro and his wife since a brief January arraignment, where they pleaded not guilty.

Maduro and Flores have sought to have the charges against them thrown out. Hellerstein declined to do so, but he pressed the prosecution on some of the issues Maduro’s legal team raised in its petition to dismiss the case.

Among them was a decision by the administration of US President Donald Trump to prevent the Venezuelan government from financing Maduro’s defence.

Federal prosecutors argued that national security reasons prevented the US from allowing such payments. They also pointed to ongoing sanctions against the Venezuelan government.

But Hellerstein pushed back against that argument, noting that Trump had eased sanctions against Venezuela since Maduro’s abduction on January 3. He also questioned how Maduro might pose a security threat while imprisoned in New York.

“The defendant is here. Flores is here. They present no further national security threat,” said Hellerstein. “I see no abiding interest of national security on the right to defend themselves.”

Hellerstein emphasised that, in the US, all criminal defendants have the right to a vigorous defence, as part of the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment.

“The right that’s implicated, paramount over other rights, is the right to constitutional counsel,” he said.

Maduro, who led Venezuela from 2013 to 2026, has been charged with four criminal counts, including narco-terrorism conspiracy, conspiracy to import cocaine, the possession of machine guns and the conspiracy to possess machine guns and other destructive devices.

He and his wife were taken into US custody on January 3, after Trump launched an attack on Venezuela.

The Trump administration has framed the military operation as a “law enforcement function”, but experts say it was widely considered illegal under international law, which protects local sovereignty.

Maduro has cited his status as the leader of a foreign country as part of his push to see the case dismissed.

When he last appeared in court, on January 5, he told the judge, “I’m still the president of my country.”

In a February hearing, his defence team sought to dismiss the charges on the basis that preventing Venezuela from paying his legal fees was “interfering with Mr Maduro’s ability to retain counsel and, therefore, his right under the Sixth Amendment to counsel of his choice”.

In an interview with the news agency AFP on Thursday, Maduro’s son, Venezuelan lawmaker Nicolas Maduro Guerra, said that he trusts the US legal system but believes that his father’s trial has been mishandled.

“This trial has vestiges of illegitimacy from the start, because of the capture, the kidnapping, of an elected president in a military operation,” Maduro Guerra said in Caracas.

Protests and counter-protests took place in front of the New York City courthouse on Thursday, with some condemning the US’s actions and others holding signs in support of the trial with slogans like, “Maduro rot in prison.”

Trump himself weighed in on the proceedings during a Thursday cabinet meeting, hinting that further charges could be brought against Maduro.

“He emptied his prisons in Venezuela, emptied his prisons into our country,” Trump said of Maduro, reiterating an unsubstantiated claim.

“And I hope that charge will be brought at some point. Because that was a big charge that hasn’t been brought yet. It should be brought.”

Trump has had an adversarial relationship with Maduro since his first term in office, when he issued a bounty for the Venezuelan leader’s arrest. He has frequently repeated baseless claims that Maduro intentionally sent immigrants and drugs to the US in a bid to destabilise the country.

Those claims have served as a pretext for Trump claiming emergency powers in realms such as immigration and national security. On Thursday, Trump emphasised that, while he expected a “fair trial”, he expected more legal action to be taken against Maduro.

“I would imagine there are other trials coming because they’ve really sued him just at a fraction of the kind of things that he’s done,” Trump said. “Other cases are going to be brought, as you probably know.”

A California jury found ⁠Alphabet’s Google and Meta liable for $3m in damages in a landmark social media addiction lawsuit that accused the companies of being legally responsible for the addictive design of their platforms.

The decision was handed down by a Los Angeles-based jury on Wednesday after more than 40 hours of deliberation across nine days, and more than a month after jurors heard opening statements in the trial.

Among those who testified in the case were Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri, although YouTube chief executive Neal Mohan was not called to testify.

The plaintiff in the case, referred to as KGM or Kaley, was awarded $3m in damages. The 20-year-old said she became addicted to social media at a young age, which exacerbated her mental health issues. She began using YouTube at age six and Meta-owned Instagram at age nine.

Kaley’s legal team alleged that the social media giants used designed features intended to hook young users, including notifications and autoplay features.

“Today’s verdict is a historic moment — for Kaley and for the thousands of children and families who have been waiting for this day. She showed extraordinary courage in bringing this case and telling her story in open court. A jury of Kaley’s peers heard the evidence, heard what Meta and YouTube knew and when they knew it, and held them accountable for their conduct. Today’s verdict belongs to Kaley,” lawyers for the plaintiff said in a statement shared with Al Jazeera.

Jurors were instructed not to consider the content of the posts and videos Kaley saw on the platforms. That is because tech companies are shielded from legal responsibility for user-posted content under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Meta consistently argued that Kaley had struggled with her mental health separate from her social media use, often pointing to her turbulent home life. Meta also said, “not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause” of her mental health issues in a statement following closing arguments. But the plaintiffs did not have to prove that social media caused Kaley’s struggles — only that it was a “substantial factor” in causing her harm.

YouTube focused less on Kaley’s medical records and mental health history and more on her use of the platform itself. The company argued that YouTube is not a form of social media, but rather a video platform, akin to television, and pointed to her declining use as she got older.

According to company data, she spent about one minute per day on average watching YouTube Shorts since its inception. YouTube Shorts, which launched in 2020, is the platform’s section for short-form, vertical videos that include the “infinite scroll” feature that the plaintiffs argued was addictive.

“We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal. This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” Jose Castaneda, a spokesperson for Google, told Al Jazeera.

Meta did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Snap and TikTok were previously named in the suit but settled with the plaintiff for undisclosed terms before the trial began.

Shifting momentum

The verdict is the latest in a wave of lawsuits targeting social media companies. There is a looming federal social media addiction case slated to begin in June in Oakland, California.

On Tuesday in New Mexico, a jury found that Meta violated state law by misleading users about the safety of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and by enabling child sexual exploitation on those platforms.

This case has been closely watched by legal experts, who say the verdict will shape future litigation.

“The fact the jury found Meta and Google liable represents that these cases have real exposure to the social media giants, and are going to frame how future litigation will proceed. Although this case will certainly be appealed, I would not be surprised if Meta and Google are already making changes within their platform to reflect the real exposure, and hopefully, the states will start to enact laws regulating social media in a manner congruent with the ruling,” entertainment lawyer Tre Lovell told Al Jazeera.

Professor Eric Goldman, associate dean for research at the Santa Clara University School of Law, echoed Lovell’s assessment.

“The Los Angeles jury verdict is the first of three bellwether trials in Los Angeles, with more bellwether trials to follow in summer, in the federal case. As such, today’s verdict is just one datapoint about liability and damages. The other trials could reach divergent outcomes, so this jury verdict isn’t the final word on any matter.”

Despite the ruling, Meta’s stock has not taken a hit, as it came the same day CEO Mark Zuckerberg was appointed to a new White House advisory council. The stock is up 0.7 percent. Alphabet’s stock, however, is trending downward in midday trading on the heels of the verdict, down 1 percent.

Karim Khan has denied the allegations and took voluntary leave from his position in May.

Judges have cleared the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, of all wrongdoing after an investigation into alleged sexual misconduct, Middle East Eye reports.

A report by Middle East Eye published on Saturday said a panel of three judges submitted a confidential report to the court’s oversight body, the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), on March 9.

“The Panel is unanimously of the opinion that the factual findings by [The UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services] OIOS do not establish misconduct or breach of duty under the relevant framework,” the report concluded, according to the sources cited by Middle East Eye.

The OIOS investigation was commissioned by the head of the ASP in November 2024 after a member of Khan’s office accused the prosecutor of sexual misconduct.

In August last year, a second woman came forward and alleged that Khan had abused his power over her while she was working for the British lawyer.

The woman had described his behaviour to UK newspaper The Guardian last year as a “constant onslaught” of advances.

Khan has denied the allegations and took voluntary leave from his position at the ICC in May, while awaiting the inquiry’s results. His deputy prosecutors have been in charge of his office in his absence.

According to Middle East Eye, the ASP met on Monday to discuss its response to the panel’s report. Under the court’s rules, if the bureau determines that no misconduct has occurred, the investigation should be closed.

The ASP has 30 days from receiving the report to make its preliminary assessment of the alleged sexual misconduct. Khan will then have 30 days to respond, and the bureau will have another 30 days to make its decision.

Khan declined to comment on the report, the outlet said.

The allegations of sexual misconduct came as Khan’s office was pursuing an investigation into alleged war crimes and genocide by Israeli officials and forces in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territory.

Khan sought arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his then-defence minister, Yoav Gallant, over “criminal responsibility” for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

He also sought arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials over the alleged unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children during Moscow’s ongoing war on Ukraine.

A federal judge in the United States has agreed to block the administration of President Donald Trump from enforcing a policy limiting news reporters’ access to the Pentagon.

Friday’s ruling sides with The New York Times in its argument that key portions of the new rules are unlawful.

US District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, DC, ruled that the Pentagon policy illegally restricts the press credentials of reporters who walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules.

The Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December, claiming the credentialing policy violates the journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process.

The current Pentagon press corps is comprised mostly of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. Reporters from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including those from The Associated Press, have continued reporting on the military.

Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the policy “fails to provide fair notice of what routine, lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension, or revocation” of Pentagon press credentials.

He ruled that the Pentagon policy ultimately violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights to free speech and due process.

“Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now,” the judge wrote.

Times lauds ruling

New York Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said the newspaper believes the ruling “enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country”.

“Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars,” Stadtlander said in a statement. “Today’s ruling reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf.”

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer who represented the Times at a hearing earlier this month, said in a statement that the court ruling is “a powerful rejection of the Pentagon’s effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war”.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

It has argued that the policy imposes “common sense” rules that protect the military from the disclosure of national security information.

“The goal of that process is to prevent those who pose a security risk from having broad access to American military headquarters,” government lawyers wrote.

The Times’ legal team, meanwhile, claimed the policy is designed to silence unfavourable press coverage of President Trump’s administration.

“The First Amendment flatly prohibits the government from granting itself the unbridled power to restrict speech because the mere existence of such arbitrary authority can lead to self-censorship,” they wrote.

Weeding out ‘disfavoured’ journalists

The judge said he recognises that “national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected”.

“But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing,” Friedman wrote.

Friedman said the “undisputed evidence” shows that the policy is designed to weed out “disfavored journalists” and replace them with those who are “on board and willing to serve” the government, a clear instance of illegal viewpoint discrimination.

“In sum, the Policy on its face makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department a potential basis for the denial, suspension, or revocation of a journalist’s [credentials],” he wrote. “It provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.”

The Pentagon had asked the judge to suspend his ruling for a week for an appeal. Friedman refused.

The judge ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the press credentials of seven Times journalists. But he said his decision to vacate the challenged policy terms applies to “all regulated parties”.

Friedman gave the Pentagon a week to file a written report on its compliance with the order.

The Times argued that the Pentagon has applied its own rules inconsistently. The newspaper noted that Trump ally Laura Loomer, a right-wing personality who agreed to the Pentagon policy, appeared to violate the Pentagon’s prohibition on soliciting unauthorised information by promoting her “tip line”.

The government didn’t object to Loomer’s tip line but concluded that a Washington Post tip line does violate its policy because it purportedly “targets” military personnel and department employees.

The judge said he does not see any meaningful difference between the two tip lines.

“But the problem is that nothing in the Policy explicitly prevents the Department from treating these two nearly identical tip lines differently,” Friedman added.

The United States Commission of Fine Arts, a federal agency, has approved plans for a commemorative gold coin that features one of Donald Trump’s recent presidential portraits.

The commission, made up of Trump appointees, voted unanimously in favour of minting the coin on Thursday. But the legality of such efforts has been repeatedly questioned.

Federal law prohibits the depiction of living presidents on US currency. Thursday’s coin, however, may sidestep the rule, as it is intended as a commemorative item, not for circulation as currency.

Still, the Trump administration has advanced other plans to put the president’s face on a $1 coin, in addition to the commemorative gold coin.

Critics denounced both initiatives as unlawful and inappropriate for a sitting leader.

“Monarchs and dictators put their faces on coins, not leaders of a democracy,” Senator Jeff Merkley told the news agency Reuters.

The Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, a bipartisan federal panel, has previously pushed back against efforts to mint Trump-themed coins.

One of its members, Donald Scarinci, said that the panel and the Commission of Fine Arts are both supposed to approve such designs.

“But we still fully expect them to plough ahead and mint both coins,” Scarinci said of the commission.

The gold coin is set to feature a bald eagle on one side, and Trump on the other, leaning with both fists on the table and staring straight ahead.

The image is a facsimile of a black-and-white image of Trump taken by photographer Daniel Torok and featured in the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC.

“I know it’s a very strong and a very tough image of him,” said Chamberlain Harris, a Trump aide who was appointed to arts commission earlier this year.

Harris indicated that the Trump gold coin would be as large as possible. The US Mint currently produces coins as large as 7.6 centimetres, or three inches, which is what Harris said the Trump administration would aim for.

“I think the larger the better. The largest of that circulation, I think, would be his preference,” Harris said, referencing her discussions with the president.

Megan Sullivan, the acting chief at the Office of Design Management at the US Mint, also indicated that Trump had given the design his approval.

“It is my understanding that the secretary of the Treasury presented this design, as well as others, to the president, and these were his selection,” Sullivan said.

Since taking office for a second term, Trump has pushed to leave his mark on the federal government.

In addition to the gold coin and $1 coin that are slated to bear his image, he has placed his name on the US Institute of Peace and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Both efforts are the subject of ongoing lawsuits. An act of Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, designating it as a living memorial to the late John F Kennedy, a president who was assassinated in office in 1963.

Likewise, the US Institute of Peace was established by Congress as an independent think tank dedicated to conflict resolution.

It was the subject of a standoff between its leadership and members of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) last March, culminating in its employees being forcibly evicted.

Trump has also placed his face on government buildings around Washington, DC, in the form of long banners.

Even the architecture of the city is changing to reflect his tastes: Last October, he tore down the White House’s East Wing in order to build a massive ballroom, and he has plans to build a triumphal arch in the capital, similar to the one in Paris, France.

Trump has pitched many of the changes as part of the country’s 250th anniversary celebrations, which culminate this July.

At Thursday’s meeting to discuss the gold coin, his officials repeated the argument that celebrating Trump was a good way to mark the anniversary.

“I think it’s fitting to have a current sitting president who’s presiding over the country over the 250th year on a commemorative coin for said year,” said Harris.

KEVIN Spacey has settled with three men who accused him of sexual assault over a 13-year period.

The Oscar-winning actor was due to go on trial at the High Court later this year after the complainants brought a civil case against him.

But Spacey has now reached an out-of-court settlement with the men, which has now frozen the legal proceedings.

It comes after the Usual Suspects star was cleared of nine sexual offence charges at a criminal trial in 2023.

Spacey has always denied any wrongdoing – claiming the accusations against him were motivated by “money, money and then money”.

Two of the men who accused the Hollywood actor during the star-studded trial then filed civil cases at the High Court.

One man, known only as LNP, claimed that Spacey “deliberately assaulted” him on around 12 occasions between 2000 and 2005.

The second – referred to as GHI – alleged he “suffered psychiatric damage and financial loss” as a result of an assault in 2008.

He claimed he met Spacey through a workshop at London’s Old Vic theatre, where the star was artistic director of the Old Vic between 2004 and 2013.

The third man, Ruari Cannon, who has waived his right to anonymity, claimed Spacey groped him in 2013 during a party at the theatre.

Spacey said the allegation was “ridiculous and it never happened”.

The court was told previously Cannon had reached a settlement with the Old Vic.

Spacey – who won Oscars for The Usual Suspects and American Beauty – was one of the most high-profile scalps during the Me Too movement.

The allegations caused his Oscar-winning career to crumble around him as he faced claims from multiple men in the UK and US.

He was stripped of an International Emmy Award in the wake of the claims and was edited out of Sir Ridley Scott film All The Money In The World.

His central character in acclaimed Netflix series House of Cards was also killed off after he was axed from the show.

Speaking in November, Spacey claimed he lost his house due to the financial fallout caused by the expensive lawsuits.

He said he put all his belongings in storage facilities – and has been forced to live in hotels and Airbnbs.