DOJ

The Dept. of Justice is investigating the NFL’s media deals with streaming companies as more of its games go behind subscription pay walls.

The investigation first reported by the Wall Street Journal centers on the financial impact of live sports streaming on consumers and whether the league’s traditional broadcast partners are getting fair treatment.

The Justice Dept. did not respond to a request for comment. A government official told NBC News the DOJ’s investigation into the NFL is “about affordability for consumers and creating an even playing field for providers.”

Early last month, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah requested the investigation in a letter to the DOJ, and issued a statement Thursday on X saying he was glad to see it move forward.

The Sports Broadcasting Act passed by Congress in 1961 allowed professional football teams to collectively license the TV rights of their games to national broadcast networks without running afoul of anti-trust laws. Lee noted that courts have recognized the act refers to broadcasts “financed through advertising and made available free to the public.”

Lee said sports packages that go behind subscription paywalls “no longer align” with the intention of the act which was passed when the public only had access to three TV networks.

The NFL has not received a letter from the DOJ saying it is under investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment. But the league issued a statement asserting that fans can see every NFL game played by the teams in their markets for free on broadcast TV unlike every other major sport.

“The NFL’s media distribution model is the most fan and broadcaster-friendly in the entire sports and entertainment industry,” the league said. “The NFL has for decades put our fans front and center in how we distribute our content.”

The NFL said 87% its games can be watched on free TV. The other 13% on streaming and cable platforms are made available on the local TV stations of the teams involved in those contests.

The sports rights landscape has shifted dramatically in the last 10 years as deep pocketed tech companies such as Amazon, Google and Netflix have provided the NFL with significant leverage in its negotiations with its longtime TV partners NBC, CBS, Fox and ESPN.

While streaming companies initially eschewed live sports because of the high cost of rights fees, they have found them to be an effective way to bring a massive number of viewers to their platforms.

Amazon Prime Video is paying $1.5 billion a year for the rights to “Thursday Night Football,” a package that was a money loser when carried by the broadcast networks. Netflix has picked up the rights to games on Christmas Day, while Google’s YouTube became the home of the Sunday Ticket package that gives subscribers access to out-of-market games.

The pressure from the newer competitors comes at a time when companies with traditional TV networks depend on the NFL more than ever as it provides the highest rated programming by a wide margin. The NFL packages also give TV station groups with leverage in negotiating carriage deal fees with cable and satellite companies.

Tensions over the rising rights fees are growing as the NFL has the right to open up the deal with Paramount, because the company underwent an ownership change last year when acquired by Skydance Media. The league is reportedly looking for another $1 billion annually from Paramount which is already paying $2.1 billion a year for its package of games on CBS.

The league has also made it clear it plans to exercise its option in 2029 to open the current 10-year media rights contract that runs through the 2032-33 season.

Fox Corporation — home of the Trump-friendly Fox News Channel — heavily depends on the NFL for programming on its TV stations — has already raised concerns about the renegotiation.

Executive Chairman Lachlan Murdoch has said he believes the $2.5 billion a year Fox pays the NFL is “fair market value.” But he has also told Wall Street analysts the company may have to re-examine its other sports deals in preparation to pay more to the NFL going forward.

Last week, Fox and station group owner Sinclair Broadcasting filed a statement with the FCC asserting that the NFL’s antitrust exemption does not apply to streaming platforms that require paid subscriptions.

“Congress provided a valuable exemption from the antitrust laws for leagues that bargain collectively for sports broadcasting,” wrote Joseph Di Scipio, Fox Corp.’s senior VP, legal and FCC compliance. “But on its face, the statute does not exempt negotiations that the leagues may have with streaming services.”

Minnesota public universities can continue to offer in-state tuition and scholarships to some immigrants in the country without legal status, a federal judge ruled Friday, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department last summer that attempted to halt the programs.

The decision follows a series of clashes between the federal government and Minnesota officials over immigration enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez said in her decision that the federal government failed to prove that programs offering in-state tuition for immigrants without legal status discriminated against U.S. citizens.

The federal lawsuit named Democratic Gov. Tim Walz and Democratic state Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison as defendants, along with the state’s Office of Higher Education. It said Minnesota law discriminates against U.S. citizens because it provides in-state tuition and scholarships to students living in the U.S. illegally if they attended a Minnesota high school for three years, and U.S. citizens who attended schools outside of the state cannot receive the same benefits. States generally set higher tuition rates for out-of-state students.

The federal government said those state statutes “flagrantly” violate a federal law that prevents states from providing preferential benefits to immigrants in the U.S. illegally regardless of whether or not they meet residency requirements.

“No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement after the lawsuit was filed last year.

Menendez said the Justice Department misinterpreted the law, enacted during the Clinton administration, because anyone who attended a Minnesota high school for at least three years are granted the same public benefits, regardless of their U.S. residency or immigration status.

She also said the federal government didn’t have standing to sue the state attorney general or governor since neither has the power to change the state laws that determine tuition eligibility.

Ellison celebrated the decision in a statement Friday.

“Today, we defeated another one of Donald Trump’s efforts to misconstrue federal law to force Minnesota to abandon duly passed state laws and become a colder, less caring state,” he wrote.

The funding for immigrants without legal status represents an “investment for our state to do everything we can to encourage a more educated workforce,” Ellison wrote.

The U.S. Justice Department didn’t respond to an email request for comment Friday.

The department has filed similar lawsuits this month against policies in Kentucky and Texas. Last week, a federal judge in Texas blocked that state’s law giving a tuition break to students living in the U.S. illegally after the state’s Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, said he supported the legal challenge.

In discussing the Texas case last year, Bondi suggested more lawsuits might be coming.

Florida ended in-state tuition eligibility for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. At least 22 states and the District of Columbia have laws or policies granting the in-state benefit, according to the National Immigration Law Center. Those states include Democratic-led California and New York, but also Republican states including Kansas and Nebraska.

According to the center, at least 13 states in addition to Minnesota allow immigrant students without legal status to receive financial aid and scholarships on top of in-state tuition.

Riddle writes for the Associated Press.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced Thursday that it has launched an investigation into two California women’s prisons to determine if they unconstitutionally provided housing and preferential treatment to “biological male prisoners.”

In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom, Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon — who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division — said investigators will look into “widely reported allegations of deprivation of female prisoners’ rights” at the Central California Women’s Facility in Madera County and the California Institution for Women in San Bernardino County.

The Justice Department said in a news release that there have been allegations “of sexual assaults, rape, voyeurism and a pervasive climate of sexual intimidation due to the presence of males in the women’s prison.”

Newsom’s office referred The Times to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. A spokesperson for the agency said it is “committed to providing a safe, humane, respectful and rehabilitative environment for all incarcerated people.”

The Department of Justice also notified Maine Gov. Janet Mills of an investigation into allegations that the state “has allowed a biological male inmate to remain housed with women despite complaints that the male inmate has assaulted or harassed several female inmates.”

Dhillon said in a video posted on X that the investigations are part of a new project called the “single-sex prisons initiative” to look for potential civil rights violations in which female inmates are forced “to be in the same rooms with men who are posing as women to get access to the female prisons.”

“In California there are reports of many dozen such men housed in women’s prisons which of course is exposing these women to sexual assault and other forms of violence and harassment that, if true, are extremely troubling and could violate the civil rights of these women,” Dhillon said.

In 2020, Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 132, which gives transgender, nonbinary and intersex inmates at state prisons the right to be housed at either men’s or women’s facilities. Opponents of the law sued the following year, alleging that it was unconstitutional and created an unsafe environment for women in female facilities, with some plaintiffs claiming they were assaulted.

At the time, LGBTQ+ advocates slammed the suit as baseless and damaging.

“The way they wrote [the complaint] is saying that trans women are men and they are putting men in women’s prisons, which is completely false,” Bamby Salcedo, president and chief executive of the TransLatin@ Coalition, which cosponsored SB 132, previously told The Times. “They’re making a claim that is not accurate and not respectful towards trans women specifically.”

In an interview with the Times Thursday, Salcedo said that while there may be instances in which people have abused the law, she stressed “it is the responsibility of the CDCR to protect people who are incarcerated.”

“They should be able to not just follow the law, but also to be able to screen people appropriately,” Salcedo said.

Salcedo said she was not surprised to hear about the new Justice Department investigation, calling it “an effort for this administration to continue to deny opportunities and access to trans people in our society.”

The Women’s Liberation Front, which brought the lawsuit, announced this week that a federal court had dismissed the case but that they planned to appeal. In an emailed statement, Elspeth Cypher, Women’s Liberation Front board president, called the Justice Department investigation “welcome and long overdue.”

“I hope that this investigation provides the women in prison with some hope that finally someone is listening,” Cypher said.

Under the bill enacted in 2021, 1,028 inmates housed at male prisons have requested to be moved to female facilities, according to data as of March 4. The department had granted 47 requests and denied 132. Another 140 applicants “changed their minds,” according to the department.

State officials said that 84 inmates sought to be transferred into men’s facilities from women’s prisons. Of those, seven were approved.

According to the corrections department, 2,405 inmates identify as nonbinary, intersex or transgender. Those populations are said to experience excessive violence in prison. A 2007 UC Irvine study that included interviews with 39 transgender inmates found that the rate of sexual assault is 13 times higher for transgender people, with 59% of those surveyed reporting experiencing such encounters.

The Justice Department said Thursday that its investigation was just getting underway and that it “has not reached any conclusions regarding allegations in these matters.”

“I’m very determined to ensure that no woman who’s incarcerated in the United States is subject to potential rape, sexual assault or other violations of her civil rights as a condition of incarceration to satisfy some woke ideology by the state,” Dhillon said. “If these states are violating these rights and they don’t stop, we will make them through litigation.”

March 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Justice Department sued Harvard University on Friday, accusing the Ivy League school of failing to protect Jewish students in the wake of the war in Israel and Gaza.

Filed in Boston, the lawsuit said Harvard allowed a “hostile education environment” for Jewish students who were physically assaulted and harassed. Protests sparked at Harvard and other U.S. college campuses after the start of the Oct. 7, 2023, war.

“The United States cannot and will not tolerate these failures and brings this action to compel Harvard to comply with Title VI, and to recover billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies to a discriminatory institution,” the lawsuit read, referencing a federal law banning discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs receiving federal funds.

Harvard denied the allegations laid out in the lawsuit, saying it has taken steps to embrace and respect Jewish and Israeli students on campus.

“Harvard has taken substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of anti-Semitism and actively enforces anti-harassment and anti-discrimination rules and policies on campus,” a statement from the school said.

“We also have enhanced training and education on anti-Semitism for students, faculty and staff, and launched programs to promote civil dialogue and respectful disagreement inside and outside the classroom.

“Harvard’s efforts demonstrate the very opposite of deliberate indifference.”

The administration has actively targeted Harvard since President Donald Trump took office in 2025. Trump’s official grievance against the university is that he claims the school failed to protect Jewish students during protests against Israel during the war that began in 2023.

In February, the Justice Department sued Harvard for failing to hand over admissions documents for an investigation about whether the admission process discriminates against white people. Earlier in February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that the Pentagon would end its academic partnership with Harvard over what he called a “woke” institution that is not welcoming to the U.S. military.

On Feb. 3, Trump said he was now seeking $1 billion in damages from Harvard but didn’t explain why.

“We are now seeking One Billion Dollars in damages, and want nothing further to do, into the future, with Harvard University,” Trump said on Truth Social.

On Dec. 19, the administration filed an appeal against a judge who blocked his order to cut funding by $2 billion.