DOJ

Fox Corp.’s $22-billion acquisition of San José-based Roku, operator of streaming services and seller of hardware devices, seemed like a straightforward deal when it was announced in June: A growing media company was looking to bolster its presence in the fast-growing streaming industry.

But, on Wednesday, the Trump administration weighed in.

Fox Corp. and Roku said that the companies received requests from the Justice Department on Tuesday for additional information in connection with its review of the merger.

While Fox and Roku downplayed the requests, saying that they had expected the outreach, the timing of the move raised eyebrows among some analysts, who said it could signal further scrutiny of the transaction by the Justice Department.

“The president has been outspoken on the fact that he will take retaliatory action against networks that say things that he doesn’t agree with, or they do things that he doesn’t agree with,” said Rob Enderle, principal analyst at advisory services firm Enderle Group.

The action follows President Trump’s surprise over Fox’s ouster of anchor Maria Bartiromo. She was pushed out after she had shared internal company texts with the White House, which sources told The Times may have been the breaking point.

Trump said on social media that he couldn’t believe that Bartiromo will no longer have her shows on Fox. “Her fans, of which there are many, will not be happy,” he wrote on Truth Social on Sept. 3.

Associate Atty. Gen. Stanley Woodward said the Justice Department could not comment on pending matters but said in a statement: “We can affirm that this DOJ under President Trump’s leadership will continue to prioritize affordability for all Americans across our economy.”

Fox announced in June its plans to acquire Roku for $22 billion, which would give the company access to Roku’s 100 million households that use its platform to connect to different streaming services. The deal would benefit Fox’s advertising business, as well as make it less reliant on traditional pay TV platforms.

Fox and Roku said they expect the merger to be done by the first half of 2027, subject to regulatory and shareholder approval, according to a Sept 9 filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

“FOX and Roku will continue to work cooperatively with the DOJ in its review of the Mergers,” Fox said in its filing.

Some legal experts said it is fairly standard for the Justice Department to make an additional request for information.

“It doesn’t mean that their review is going to be more extensive than usual,” said Ray Seilie, an entertainment attorney at law firm Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir.

For example, the Justice Department made a second request for information when it reviewed Paramount Skydance’s deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, he said. The merging companies typically send information that helps the government figure out what the market impact will be of a merger, he added.

The Justice Department ultimately approved Paramount’s planned acquisition, despite opposition from some industry stakeholders. State attorneys general and the Writers Guild of America have sued Paramount over the deal, raising antitrust concerns. Others have pointed out close ties between Trump and Larry Ellison, a financial backer of the deal, who has also donated money to a group that supports Trump. Ellison’s son, David, is chief executive of Paramount Skydance.

Legal experts and analysts said they don’t think the combination of Fox and Roku raises antitrust issues because they are not dominant players in streaming and have businesses that complement each other.

But one wild card is Trump.

“You never know what Trump is going to seize on and decide he wants to do,” said Bryan Sullivan, a partner with law firm Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae on whether Trump will take retaliatory action through the Justice Department in the Fox-Roku deal. “It’s chaos in the federal government and it could very well happen because of that reason, but it could also just be a blip and not a big deal.”

Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.

Sept. 3 (UPI) — The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to permit enforcement of its mail-in voting restrictions, arguing it will suffer irreparable harm because two states will begin sending ballots to voters before the block is to expire next week.

Filed Thursday by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the request for an immediate administrative stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order comes in protracted litigation over a Trump administration rule giving the U.S. Postal Service authority to screen outbound mail-in ballots for compliance with envelope standards and verify recipients have been entered on their state’s USPS Mail-In and Absentee Participation list.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts sided with the League of Women Voters in Massachusetts, which has been fighting the rule it says is unlawful and violates federalism principles of the Constitution, issuing a 14-day block against enforcing its key provisions while she considers the request to impose a longer, more restrictive preliminary injunction.

In his filing Thursday, Sauer argued that the federal government will be irreparably harmed if the restraining order is not lifted before North Carolina and Alabama send out their mail-in ballots next week, saying a court decision would come too late for those ballots.

“With respect to the November 2026 election, the order thus partially nullifies the Postal Service’s efforts to address the risk that the federal mails will be used to perpetrate voter fraud,” he said.

Sauer continued that despite Talwani’s order allowing the Postal Service and states to take steps to ensure their envelopes meet the rule’s requirements, her block “risks sowing confusion and chaos because it makes those preparatory steps voluntary, rather than mandatory.

“Thus, if the order is eventually stayed and the rule takes effect for this year’s elections — as should occur — there is a grave risk that states may not have taken the necessary steps to comply due to the false sense of latitude created by the court’s improper order, potentially depriving those states’ citizens of the ability to vote by mail,” he said.

Despite using the mail to vote himself, Trump has long been a critic of mail-in ballots, claiming them to be a source of voting fraud, though studies have found no evidence that mail voting produces higher overall rates of voter fraud.

The USPS rule is one of several actions Trump and his administration have taken ahead of November’s midterm elections, which the president has become increasingly focused on as he has warned Republicans that losing the House to Democrats could lead to his impeachment as well as investigations. While the moves generally have widespread Republican support, Democrats and critics say they are efforts to rig the midterms.

The new USPS rule being litigated comes in response to an executive order Trump signed in March to expand federal control over mail-in ballots, including authorizing the USPS not to send them to voters unless certain conditions are met.

Two weeks ago, the high court lifted an injunction blocking Trump’s mail-voting executive order, stating the challenge to the USPS provisions was premature as the agency had yet to issue a final rule. After the final rule was published Aug. 26, two dozen Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia sued, resulting in the two-week block the Trump administration is now contesting.

Sept. 2 (UPI) — The Trump administration sued a Kansas City school district on Tuesday, accusing it of violating federal law with guidelines concerning disclosure of a student’s gender identity to their parents.

The Justice Department described the lawsuit as the first it has filed against a school district alleging that gender-identity guidelines violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment.

“Parental rights are paramount in operation of America’s public schools, and Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools does not know children better than their own parents,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement.

“The department will not tolerate school districts playing fast and loose with federal law in the service of radical gender ideology.”

Having campaigned on an anti-“woke” platform that included opposition to transgender rights, President Donald Trump has repeatedly targeted policies benefiting transgender Americans, particularly minors and students, seeking to ban transgender girls and women from competing in female sports and restrict minors’ access to gender-affirming healthcare.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday challenges as unlawful KCKPS guidelines that allow students to request that their transgender or gender-nonconforming identity be withheld from their parents, with such requests considered on a case-by-case basis, as well as guidelines allowing school officials to consider using a student’s preferred name, gender, and pronouns. The Justice Department described such policies as “facilitating secret ‘gender transitions’ for children at school without their parents’ knowledge or consent.”

Federal prosecutors allege that the guidelines are unlawful because they require a meeting to be held to discuss the student’s request, creating records that the Justice Department argues FERPA requires school districts to provide to parents. FERPA also arms parents with the authority to challenge records, and the KCKPS guidelines deny them the opportunity to even see the gender plan for their child, let alone challenge, correct or delete it, the Justice Department argues.

Its PPRA claim is that the guidelines violate the law’s guarantee that minor students will not undergo a survey, analysis or evaluation that reveals certain information, including mental or psychological problems, sexual behavior or attitudes and religious beliefs, without parental consent.

U.S. Attorney Ryan Kriegshauser for the District of Kansas said the lawsuit should “not come as a surprise” given that public education only works when schools and parents work together.

“When schools withhold information from parents, they undermine trust and disrupt the essential balance between families and public educators,” he said in a statement.

KCKPS denies the allegations, stating it is in compliance with both FERPA and the PPRA and that it was “disappointed by the DOJ’s decision to file the lawsuit.”

The lawsuit comes more than a year after the Education Department initiated an investigation into the school district following receipt of a complaint against its guidelines from the conservative Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies, which was founded by former Trump administration officials.

In July, KCKPS Superintendent Anna Stubblefield told local KSHB41 that what the Trump administration is targeting are guidelines, not policies.

“There’s nowhere in the guidance where we say ‘withhold information from parents.’ We have no reason or incentive to withhold information from parents about anything that they’re entitled to for their students,” she said.

“When they say we have a policy, we’ve never had a policy.”

A federal judge this week threw out the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit challenging California policies that allow transgender athletes to compete on school sports teams that match their gender identity.

The Justice Department alleged that the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation were in violation of Title IX, a 1972 federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity that receives federal funding. It argued the law requires that sports eligibility and facilities access be based on biological sex, not gender identity.

But U.S. District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela found that Title IX does no such thing — and that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing other states to apply such eligibility standards only reinforced her conclusion.

Valenzuela, an appointee of President Biden, wrote that the Supreme Court had “explained that Title IX’s regulations ‘expressly permit schools’ to maintain separate sex-based teams and ultimately held that States ‘may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females’ and ‘may determine eligibility’ for those teams based on biological sex” — and “thus upheld the biological-sex eligibility rules before it without holding that Title IX requires every school to adopt the same rule.”

Valenzuela wrote that the Supreme Court “declined to decide whether Title IX permits transgender girls to participate on girls’ and women’s teams,” and “expressly stated” that nothing in its opinion addressed that “distinct question.”

Valenzuela wrote that she, likewise, did not need to decide that issue, only “whether Title IX and its implementing regulations clearly required California to exclude transgender girls from girls’ teams and sex-separated facilities.” She found “they did not.”

Therefore, Valenzuela wrote that California “lacked clear notice” of such categorical exclusion of transgender athletes as a condition of the federal funding California received, and other court decisions — including the Supreme Court’s in June — did not “supply the missing clarity.”

A Justice Department spokesperson said the agency is “evaluating our options for appeal.”

“We are disappointed by the Court’s order, and remain committed to enforcing President Trump’s agenda preventing boys from playing in girls’ sports,” it said, referring to transgender girls.

The Justice Department suit threatened to cut $44.3 billion in federal funding from the California Department of Education, if the state did not change its policies.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, which represented the California agencies in court, deferred questions to the agencies.

Rebecca Brutlag, a spokesperson for the CIF, said it does not comment on legal matters. The California Department of Education did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In court, they had made similar arguments as those Valenzuela cited in her ruling — arguing that Title IX does not require excluding transgender girls from girls’ sports, and neither does the recent Supreme Court ruling.

LGBTQ+ rights organizations praised Valenzuela’s ruling Tuesday.

Trevor Norcross, the father of Lily Norcross — a teenage transgender track athlete at Arroyo Grande High School on the Central Coast and one of the athletes whose participation in sports was cited by the Justice Department as a violation of Title IX — said it is “time to get back to supporting and enjoying girls’ and women’s sports instead of trying to tear them down.”

“I’m especially excited that girls in California can now focus on athletic competition without having to worry about manufactured culture wars and the prospect of invasive body inspections if they don’t look feminine enough,” he said.

Rainbow Families Action, a group that advocates for the rights of trans kids, hailed the decision, saying the Trump administration’s “relentless and hateful campaign against transgender children has hit another roadblock.”

The Justice Department’s lawsuit was brought by two longtime critics of California’s policies for transgender students: Harmeet Dhillon, a hard-charging conservative attorney in California before her elevation to head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division; and Bill Essayli, a conservative state lawmaker before his elevation to lead the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles.

It was part of a much broader and ongoing effort by the Trump administration to erase trans-inclusive policies nationwide — around youth sports but also public bathrooms, medical care and official government documents.

California’s own policies for transgender athletes have been in flux.

Last year, President Trump took to his social media platform and demanded that state officials ban transgender teenage track star AB Hernandez from competing at the state track and field competition.

Amid those threats, the CIF updated its rules for transgender competitors. Under the new rules, transgender athletes can compete, but their qualifying for events cannot take a spot away from any cisgender competitor, and they must share whichever podium position they win with the next best cisgender athlete.

Hernandez went on to compete and win multiple medals, sharing her spots on the medal podiums with the cisgender athletes who otherwise would have claimed them had Hernandez not been competing. Hernandez repeated her success this year, again sharing her wins with cisgender competitors.

Los Angeles Times reporter Howard Blume contributed to this article.

Aug. 28 (UPI) — The Justice Department is suing four more states over offering in-state tuition benefits to qualifying undocumented students, for a total of 21 lawsuits filed against so-called Dream Acts amid the Trump administration’s anti-immigration push.

The lawsuits against Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington — all Democratic-led — were individually filed Thursday, alleging their laws providing undocumented students with in-state tuition and financial assistance unconstitutionally discriminate against out-of-state U.S. citizens to whom such benefits are not offered.

“By granting illegal aliens in-state tuition, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico and Arizona are pushing citizens to the side and ignoring federal law. No more,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. said in a statement.

“Our efforts will not cease until President Trump’s promise is fulfilled: illegal aliens will not receive benefits denied to American citizens.”

The Trump administration is asking the courts to enjoin the states from enforcing their so-called Dream Acts that require colleges and universities to offer the in-state benefits to certain noncitizen students. The lawsuits argue the laws conflict with a 1996 federal statute that bars states from offering in-state tuition to people not lawfully present in the United States unless a citizen of the United States is eligible for the same benefit without regard to whether they are a resident of the school’s state.

Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson said he plans to fight the lawsuit.

“Washington State won’t be bullied into changing how we provide opportunities for young people in our state,” he said in a statement.

“We’ll see them in court, and we expect to win.”

The Justice Department has been targeting these laws following an April 2025 Trump-signed executive order that directed the attorney general to identify and stop enforcement of policies that favor “aliens over any groups of American citizens,” specifically highlighting Dream Act laws.

Proponents of these laws argue that they put postsecondary education within reach of those who otherwise would never have the opportunity to attend university, while reducing high school dropout rates as well as raising student incomes and tax contributions.

Of the 21 lawsuits, five states have been enjoined from enforcing their laws, while the other lawsuits continue to be litigated.

Aug. 26 (UPI) — The Justice Department and FBI announced Wednesday that they seized two platforms used to target U.S. critical infrastructure and other sensitive networks.

The seizures were of two hacking platforms called QScan and QTRouter, which were used to hack U.S. infrastructure sites, the press release said. The affidavit described a Chinese state-sponsored group known as QTFY whose members are employed by China-based Nanjing Xinjiuwei Network Technology Company that has hacked into NASA, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Energy, Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Senate.

“Federal law enforcement investigated and disabled [China’s] malicious software, the latest in a series of technical operations to dismantle indiscriminate hacking activities sponsored by the People’s Republic of China,” Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement.

“These court-authorized seizures deny [China]-linked hackers access to tools they use to mount online attacks against our Nation’s critical infrastructure,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg in a statement.

According to court documents, QTFY offers computer hacking services to its paying customers, including China’s army and Ministry of State Security. These computer hacking services include QScan and QTRouter, which work in conjunction, the press release said.

QScan scans and automatically infects thousands of internet-of-things devices worldwide, which are then added to the QTRouter network of QTFY-controlled devices. QTRouter consists of these compromised IoT devices, as well as commercial proxy service devices and leased virtual private servers. QTRouter then serves as an obfuscation network — meaning it allows QTFY and other malicious cyber actors to conceal the China-origin of their computer intrusion activities because the malicious communications appear to originate from computers that are outside of China and may even be local to the targeted networks.

Because the seized domains were hard-coded into the QScan and QTRouter malware and used for essential tasks such as communication and authentication, the court-authorized seizures made QScan and QTRouter inoperable.

The U.S. Department of Justice and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department have agreed to settle a lawsuit over what federal prosecutors alleged last year was a pattern of delaying applications for permits to carry concealed firearms for “unreasonable” lengths of time.

The Sheriff’s Department will “bring its procedures in line with the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen decision,” the DOJ said in a statement Thursday, referring to a 2022 high court decision affirming a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.

Excessively delaying applications for concealed carry permits, the DOJ had alleged, effectively violated the applicants’ constitutional rights.

In response to its lawsuit, the DOJ’s statement said, the Sheriff’s Department “drastically cut those waiting times and is now in compliance with statutory deadlines.” The development is “a huge win for the residents of Los Angeles County and for the Second Amendment,” the federal agency added.

“The Justice Department supports our law enforcement partners.” Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said in the statement. “The sheriff acknowledged the problem and devoted substantial additional resources, including new processing software and additional personnel, to cutting waiting times dramatically.”

The Sheriff’s Department did not immediately provide comment on the settlement.

In its complaint filed in federal district court in L.A. in September, the DOJ claimed that the Sheriff’s Department had “systematically denied thousands of law-abiding Californians their fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home — not through outright refusal, but through a deliberate pattern of unconscionable delay.”

The complaint stated that between Jan. 2, 2024, and March 31, 2025, the Sheriff’s Department received almost 4,000 applications for new concealed carry licenses, but issued only two. Two others were denied and the rest were either withdrawn or were still pending, according to the DOJ.

The DOJ complaint also cited Sheriff’s Department data that showed that over those 15 months, it took an average of nearly 300 days for the department to advance the more than 8,000 new permit applications and renewals it received.

The Sheriff’s Department said in September that Sheriff Robert Luna, who was also listed by name as a defendant in the original federal complaint, “inherited a dysfunctional system” when he took office in 2022, and that he had only 13 people to manage the avalanche of applications for concealed carry permits filed each year in L.A. County.

The department also said in September that since December 2022, it had reduced “the backlog” of applications for concealed carry licenses from about 10,000 to about 3,200, and that more than 19,000 such applications had been “successfully approved” since 2020.

Aug. 11 (UPI) — A federal judge has approved the Trump administration’s request to dismiss criminal charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani while chastising the Justice Department for its reasoning and methods for abandoning the high-profile case.

U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed with prejudice three fraud-related charges against Gautam Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain, while reserving judgement on two conspiracy charges against five other defendants, asking the Justice Department for more information before deciding their dismissals.

The Justice Department charged Gautam Adani and the seven other defendants, all current or former executives of Adani Group or its subsidiary Adani Green Energy, in November 2024, alleging various defendants participated in schemes to pay $265 million in bribes to Indian government officials to secure lucrative solar energy contracts, lied to U.S. and international investors to raise billions of dollars in financing and impede the investigations of three U.S. government entities.

The three alleged schemes were conducted between 2020 and 2024, according to the indictment.

In May, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter requested that the charges be dismissed, stating “the Department of Justice has reviewed this case and has decided, in its prosecutorial discretion, not to devote further resources to these criminal charges against individual defendants.”

In response to Garaufis’ demand that the Justice Department explain its motion to dismiss, McCotter said that the case is predominantly foreign, India has investigated the allegations and found no actionable misconduct, investors lost no money, there would be “extraordinary proof problems,” the defendants would likely never appear before U.S. courts and the indictment was unsealed during the final days of the Biden administration in order to drop “a potential quagmire of a case into the lap” of the incoming Trump administration.

In his Monday order, Garaufis called the “irregularities” in McCotter’s decision to dismiss the indictment “concerning” and said the principal associate deputy attorney general “appears to have eschewed the professional opinions of innumerable officials from various federal offices and replaced them with his singular judgment.”

He said McCotter’s decision, reached largely in collaboration with Adani’s defense counsel and seemingly without input from those who investigated and brought the case, “evinces a lack of respect for the judiciary.”

Garaufis also strongly rebuked McCotter for alleging the Biden administration’s Justice Department unsealed the indictment during its final days to hinder the incoming Trump administration, stating he appears to be accusing officials from four different government agencies without providing “a scintilla of evidence” to show that the unsealing of the indictment was politically motivated.

“McCotter’s baseless assertion is unbecoming of his office. It is also inconsistent with this court’s experience,” Garaufis said.

“The court has presided over innumerable cases brought by the SEC, the FBI, the department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office over the last 26 years (and counting) and does not agree with McCotter’s characterization of their integrity and motives.”

His order also recounts several events involving Gautam Adani and President Donald Trump or his inner circle as he was being investigated and prosecuted, including congratulating Trump on Nov. 6, 2024, on winning re-election and announcing a commitment to invest $10 billion in the United States days later. The order also cites reporting that Gautam Adani and Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., held meetings as early as November 2025.

In a social media statement on Monday, Gautam Adani said he welcomed the court’s decision “with humility and deep respect for the judicial process.”

“Throughout this challenging period, our faith in truth, fairness and the rule of law remained unwavering,” he said.

“We will continue doing what matters: building our nation, creating value that outlasts us and serving a purpose larger than ourselves. That is our commitment.”