federal lawsuit

Gov. Gavin Newsom said Sunday that he intends to seek a court order in an attempt to stop President Trump’s deployment of California National Guard troops to Oregon.

Calling the president’s action a “breathtaking abuse of power,” Newsom said in a statement that 300 California National Guard personnel were being deployed to Portland, Ore., a city the president has called “war-ravaged.”

“They are on their way there now,” Newsom said of the National Guard. “This is a breathtaking abuse of the law and power.”

Trump’s move came a day after a federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked the federalization of Oregon’s National Guard.

The president, who mobilized the California National Guard amid immigration protests earlier this year, has pursued the use of the military to fight crime in cities including Chicago and Washington, D.C., sparking outrage among Democratic officials in those cities. Local leaders, including those in Portland, have said the actions are unnecessary and without legal justification.

“The Trump Administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words — ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents,” Newsom said.

In June, Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a federal lawsuit over Trump’s mobilization of the state’s National Guard during immigration protests in Los Angeles. California officials are expected to file the court order over Sunday’s deployment using that existing lawsuit.

Newsom has ratcheted up his rhetoric about Trump in recent days: On Friday, the governor lashed out at universities that may sign the president’s higher education compact, which demands rightward campus policy shifts in exchange for priority federal funding.

“I need to put pressure on this moment and pressure test where we are in U.S. history, not just California history,” Newsom said. “…This is it. We are losing this country.”

The Los Angeles Film School is at the center of a whistleblower lawsuit from two former executives who allege the institution unlawfully collected government funds in an elaborate accreditation scheme.

Dave Phillips and Ben Chaib, the school’s former VP of career development and VP of admissions, respectively, allege in a federal lawsuit that the L.A. Film School violated federal employment requirements and accrediting standards. The lawsuit also names LAFS’ Florida counterpart Full Sail University, its main owner James Heavener and two other business partners as defendants.

The lawsuit, originally filed in L.A. federal court in June 2024, was recently unsealed after the Department of Justice opted to not investigate.

Representatives of LAFS could not be immediately reached for comment but have previously denied the claims.

In statement to Variety last week the school’s attorneys said that Phillips and Chaib are attempting “to resuscitate time-barred and erroneous allegations, which were already thoroughly investigated and settled by the Department of Education.”

For a university to be accredited and receive federal funding, the accreditation criteria state that a school must successfully instruct 70% of its students to land and hold jobs for which they are trained. The plaintiffs argue that graduates from the film school are unable to receive entry-level positions, citing an internal report which shows that most graduates earn $5,000 or less in their field of study. Only 20% of students were able to find work, the suit alleges.

LAFS receives over $85 million a year in federal financial assistance, including about $60 million in federal student loans, and more than $19 million in veterans’ financial aid funds. The Winter Park, Fla.-located Full Sail University, which teaches curriculum in entertainment-adjacent fields, also gets over $377 million per year in federal financial assistance, according to the complaint.

“For at least the last ten years, nearly all federal funds bestowed upon and taken in resulted from fraud with the institution using taxpayer funds to finance and facilitate multiple, temporary employment positions for LAFS graduates,” the lawsuit states.

Seeking to continue collecting government funds, the university is alleged to have spent nearly $1 million (between 2010 and 2017) to provide temporary employment from nonprofits and paid-off vendors. These jobs would usually last two days; LAFS would determine who would be hired, their schedule and wage. Students were led to believe these opportunities were “in-house production opportunities” and “post-graduate apprenticeships,” but instead, they were schemes planned and paid for by the school to remain an accredited university, according to the lawsuit.

Federal law prohibits higher education from “provid[ing] any commission, bonus, or other incentive payment based directly or indirectly on success in securing enrollments.” When LAFS was audited in 2017, the plaintiffs further allege that the school misled the Department of Education auditors, denied the existence of the incentive compensation system and failed to disclose their connection to vendors.

Beyond collecting these federal funds, the former executives argue that the school misled students and potential enrollees by overstating the availability of jobs and making untrue or misleading statements related to employment.

LAFS was created in 1999 and is located on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. It offers a variety of bachelor’s and associate degrees in areas including film, film production and animation, with tuition ranging between $40,000 and $80,000.

Both plaintiffs, Phillips and Chaib, worked at the film school for 12 years and were members of the senior executive team. Phillips’ contract was not renewed in 2022.

The Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges recently renewed the school’s accreditation in 2023 for a five-year period.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has relieved three deputies of duty while it investigates the circumstances of the bloody beating of a Valencia man outside a Santa Clarita bar last year.

Parker Seitz, 25, alleged in a federal lawsuit that off-duty sheriff’s deputies attacked him outside a bar called the Break Room last Thanksgiving Day.

He sustained multiple serious injuries, according to the complaint filed in California’s Central District federal court on Aug. 25, including a fractured jaw, a punctured lung and a bruised collarbone.

Seitz is suing the county, multiple L.A. County sheriff’s deputies, hired security guards at the Break Room, and the bar itself for unspecified damages.

“Parker Seitz was violently attacked by off-duty Los Angeles Sheriff’s Deputies, under the watchful eye of security guards contracted by a local business,” Josh Stambaugh, an attorney for Seitz, said in a statement. “He suffered serious injuries and, as we allege in our lawsuit, members and leaders of the LASD then attempted to conceal the truth of the attack and evade accountability on behalf of the organization.”

The sheriff’s department said in an email that it “takes these allegations seriously,” and that on Dec. 2 it “initiated an internal investigation into the incident. Three employees have been relieved of duty pending the outcome of the investigation.”

Management at the Break Room did not respond to requests for comment.

The complaint alleges assault and battery by off-duty deputies Randy Austin and Nicholas Hernandez and an unidentified third assailant, along with a civil conspiracy by the county and a number of sheriff’s department employees accused of trying to bury the incident.

Parker Seitz, 25, alleges off-duty sheriff’s deputies attacked him outside a Santa Clarita bar called the Break Room last Thanksgiving Day. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has relieved three deputies of duty while it investigates the incident.

(Robert Hanashiro / For The Times)

About 10:30 p.m. Nov. 27, Seitz and two friends visited the bar, where Austin, Hernandez and the third assailant “began to bother and harass Seitz, including by repeatedly reaching for the sunglasses resting on” his head, according to the complaint. Minutes after Seitz left the bar about 1:36 a.m. Nov. 28, the complaint said, Hernandez knocked the shades off Seitz’s head “in a rude and offensive manner” and “an altercation broke out.”

The altercation dissipated quickly, according to the complaint, but then at about 1:46 a.m., Austin, “suddenly and without any justification,” punched Seitz and knocked him down, then Austin, Hernandez and the unidentified third person proceeded “to beat and stomp on him while he was on the ground.”

Seitz was bloodied during the beating and taken to a nearby hospital. Shortly after his arrival there, Justin Diez — who was a captain in charge of the Santa Clarita Valley sheriff’s station at the time of the incident and was promoted in April to lead the department’s North Patrol Division as commander — and deputy Richard Wyatt allegedly defamed him and violated his constitutional and civil rights in an effort to intimidate him and cover up the assault, the complaint said.

Wyatt, Seitz alleged, told one of Seitz’s friends that he had thrown the first punch and that he had been disruptive while at the hospital, which Seitz denies.

Later that morning, Diez called Seitz’s father, Ryan Seitz, and told him his son had “started a fight with off-duty deputies of the LASD” and “if Ryan Seitz would leave it to” Diez, he “would make sure the situation would go away,” the complaints said, describing the call as an attempt “to cover up the true circumstances of the beating … and to intimidate and dissuade Seitz from filing or pressing charges or pursuing any claims against the deputies” or the county.

The Sheriff’s Department did not directly respond to the allegations outlined in Seitz’s complaint, but it said that it “has established policies and procedures that clearly outline the standards of conduct required of all employees. … Any violation of these standards will be addressed promptly, and appropriate action will be taken if evidence is found to support the allegation of misconduct.”

Stambaugh said Seitz “was out with friends after a Friendsgiving dinner celebrating the purchase of his first home” the night he was allegedly assaulted.

“Parker Seitz’s lawsuit is a demand for accountability in response to the wrongs he has personally suffered, and an effort to ensure that the actions of these specific LASD members remain an anomaly,” Stambaugh said in his statement. “This is not the LASD that the Seitz family had supported and believed in.”

WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose case has come to encapsulate much of President Trump’s hard-line immigration agenda, wants to seek asylum in the United States, his lawyers told a federal judge Wednesday.

Abrego Garcia, 30, was detained Monday by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement in Baltimore after leaving a Tennessee jail on Friday. The Trump administration said it intends to deport him to the African country of Uganda.

Administration officials have said he’s part of the dangerous MS-13 gang, an allegation Abrego Garcia denies.

The Salvadoran national’s lawyers are fighting the deportation efforts in court, arguing he has the right to express fear of persecution and torture in Uganda. Abrego Garcia has also told immigration authorities he would prefer to be sent to Costa Rica if he must be removed from the U.S.

A request for asylum in 2019

A U.S. immigration judge denied his request for asylum in 2019 because he applied more than a year after he had fled to the U.S. He left El Salvador at the age of 16, around 2011, to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen and was living in Maryland.

Although he was denied asylum, the immigration judge did issue an order shielding Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he faced credible threats of violence from a gang there that had terrorized him and his family. He was granted a form of protection known as “withholding of removal,” which prohibits him from being sent to El Salvador but allows his deportation to another country.

Following the 2019 ruling, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision and continued to live with his American wife and children in Maryland. He checked in with ICE each year, received a federal work permit and was working as a sheet metal apprentice earlier this year, his lawyers have said.

But in March, the Trump administration deported Abrego Garcia to a notorious El Salvador prison, alleging he was a member of MS-13.

The allegation stems from a day in 2019 when Abrego Garcia sought work as a day laborer at a Home Depot in Maryland. Authorities had been told by a confidential informant that Abrego Garcia and other men could be identified as members of MS-13 because of their clothing and tattoos. He was detained by police, but Abrego Garcia was never charged — and has repeatedly denied the allegation. He was turned over to ICE and that’s when he applied for asylum for the first time.

Wrongful deportation and return

The Trump administration’s deportation of Abrego Garcia in March violated the immigration judge’s 2019 order barring his removal to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia’s wife sued to bring him back. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. in June, where he was charged with human smuggling, a federal offense.

Abrego Garcia is accused of taking money to transport people who were in the country illegally. He has pleaded not guilty and asked the judge to dismiss the case, saying it was filed to punish him for challenging his deportation.

The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee. There were nine passengers in the SUV and Abrego Garcia had $1,400 in cash on him. While officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling, he was allowed to drive away with only a warning.

A Homeland Security agent testified that he didn’t begin investigating until this April, when the government was facing mounting pressure to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. The trial is set for January.

A federal judge in Tennessee released Abrego Garcia from jail on Friday after ruling that he was not a flight risk or a danger. The Trump administration moved to deport Abrego Garcia again on Monday, alleging he is a danger.

Abrego Garcia then stated his intent to reopen his immigration case in Maryland and to seek asylum again, his lawyers said Wednesday. Asylum, as defined under U.S. law, provides a green card and a path to citizenship. Abrego Garcia can still challenge his deportation to Uganda, or any other country, on grounds that it is unsafe.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers say sending him to Uganda would be punishment for successfully fighting his deportation to El Salvador, refusing to plead guilty to the smuggling charges and for seeking release from jail in Tennessee.

Judge keeps Abrego Garcia in the U.S., for now

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have filed a federal lawsuit to ensure that he can exercise his constitutionally protected right to fight deportation. He is entitled to immigration court proceedings and appeals, his lawyers say.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland, who is overseeing the lawsuit, has ruled that the U.S. government cannot remove Abrego Garcia from the country as the lawsuit plays out.

Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign said the government disagrees with the court’s order not to remove him while the lawsuit is pending but that it will comply.

Xinis will not rule on whether Abrego Garcia receives asylum or is deported, but will determine whether he can exercise his right to contest deportation. His asylum case will be heard by a U.S. immigration judge, who is employed by the Department of Justice under the authority of the Trump administration.

The nation’s immigration courts have become a key focus of Trump’s hard-line immigration enforcement efforts. The president has fired more than 50 immigration judges since he returned to the White House in January.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have said he’ll be able to appeal immigration court rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Kunzelman and Finley write for the Associated Press. Finley reported from Norfolk, Va. AP writer Elliot Spagat contributed to this report.

Actress Gina Carano, Lucasfilm and its parent company Walt Disney Co. have settled the federal lawsuit filed in which Carano claimed that, in 2021, she was wrongfully terminated from her role in “The Mandalorian” after she expressed her conservative political views on social media.

The settlement details have not been made public, but Lucasfilm released a statement praising Carano’s on-set professionalism and expressing the hope of “identifying opportunities to work together with Ms. Carano in the near future.”

I am here to beg everyone to remain calm and avoid using the four Cs: cancel culture (is this the end of it?) and corporate capitulation (is this another example of it?)

No and no.

Cancel culture has long been an amorphous and often recklessly applied term, used to describe a litany of events, including but certainly not limited to male predators losing their jobs, students protesting their school’s choice of graduation speakers and outrage over J.K. Rowling’s stance on transgender women.

Recently, however, it has taken a far more concrete shape that looks astonishingly like the White House where President Trump continues to literally cancel all manner of things, including U.S. membership in the World Health Organization, the regulatory power of the Environmental Protection Agency and huge portions of Medicaid. Recently, he fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after the bureau documented weaker than expected numbers for July and downward revisions for the previous two months.

Corporate capitulation, too, is alive and well, with law firms, universities and media companies falling like dominoes before Trump’s lawsuits and threats of defunding. Last year, Trump sued ABC and its parent company Disney for defamation after anchor George Stephanopoulos wrongly stated on air that Trump had been found civilly liable for raping E. Jean Carroll — Trump had been found civilly liable of sexually assaulting and defaming Carroll. Disney settled for $15 million, paid to Trump’s presidential foundation and museum.

Even more troubling was Paramount Global’s decision to pay a $16-million settlement in what many consider a frivolous lawsuit brought by Trump against “60 Minutes.” After late-night host Stephen Colbert called the move a “big fat bribe” designed to ensure Paramount’s recent acquisition by Skydance, CBS, which is owned by Paramount, announced that “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” was being canceled due to financial considerations.

So while it is tempting to see Disney settling with Carano as a piece of a larger and very worrisome whole, particularly when Elon Musk financed her lawsuit, it was in fact simply the right thing to do.

Carano is a former mixed martial artist turned actor who has been vocal about her support for conservative causes and President Trump. In 2020, she had caught some flack for posting “beep/bop/boop” as her pronouns in her Twitter bio, which some took as her way of mocking trans people. She denied this, changed her bio and expressed support for the trans community.

There were also posts that criticized masking policies and shutdowns during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as one calling for an investigation into voter fraud after the 2020 election.

But it was a repost on Instagram that cost her her job — in February 2021, she reposted a famously horrific image of a half-naked Jewish woman fleeing from a mob with a moronically simplistic message about divisive politics: “Most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?”

Landing just a month after then-President Trump sent an armed mob to attack the Capitol in the hopes of overturning an election he refused to believe he had lost, the post, which appeared to compare MAGA supporters in 2021 America with Jews in Nazi Germany, sparked #FireGinaCarano.

And that’s exactly what Disney did. Calling her posts “abhorrent and unacceptable,” Lucasfilm excised her character from “The Mandalorian” and canceled an upcoming spinoff in which she was to star. Her talent agency, UTA, dropped her and Hasbro canceled a line of toys based on her “Mandalorian” character.

It was an overreaction that smacked of fear and pandering. I do not agree with the sentiments Carano expressed in her posts, but compared with the blithely toxic abuse regularly used on social media, they are relatively benign, based far more on genuine ignorance — most people are in fact aware of the vicious antisemitism leveraged by the Nazis as well as their institutionalized tactics of fear — than anything else.

Of course, those who attempt to be politically provocative on social media (and reposting a photo of a victimized Jewish woman in such context is the definition of political provocation) cannot then feign shock and dismay when people are provoked, especially at a time when far-right tweets, including the president’s, had led to a violent attack against lawmakers. (Hence the irony of Musk’s support — the platform he renamed X was in large part built on its ability to harness all manner of just and unjust hashtag campaigns.)

But as my colleague Robin Abcarian noted when Carano filed her lawsuit in 2023, the social media mob’s decision that a woman, who was far from a household name, deserved to lose her livelihood, and more important, Lucasfilm’s agreement with that decision, was extreme.

Bad publicity is never good for an entertainment property and whether it was explicit in her contract or not, Carano did represent, to a certain extent, “The Mandalorian,” Lucasfilm and Disney. Unfortunately, the entertainment industry’s increasing reliance on social media has created a world in which actors and other creative types are expected to amass millions of followers on platforms that tend to reward the outspoken and outrageous over the thoughtful. Encouraged to reveal themselves “authentically,” stars can find themselves prodded by fans to comment on current events and excoriated when they refuse or respond in a way that certain followers consider insincere or politically incorrect.

Telling people to stay off social media is not the answer; neither is regulation by hashtag campaign.

While Carano’s case is certainly reflective of many perils that face us at the moment, the fact that she reached a settlement, including an apparent promise of more work, is not a sign of further deterioration.

The fear that our cultural landscape is being attacked by political forces that would strangle the notion of free speech and competing ideologies is real and justified. But in this case, the capitulation came not when Disney and Lucasfilm decided to settle with Carano, but when they fired her in the first place.

BALTIMORE — A federal lawsuit could open a new chapter in an escalating legal battle in Maryland, where officials are struggling to address an unexpected onslaught of claims alleging child sexual abuse in state-run juvenile detention facilities.

With thousands of similar claims already pending in state court, the litigation has raised questions about how Maryland will handle the potential financial liability.

The new federal suit, filed Wednesday on behalf of three plaintiffs, seeks $300 million in damages — an amount that far exceeds caps imposed on claims filed in state court. It alleges Maryland juvenile justice leaders knew about a culture of abuse inside youth detention facilities and failed to address it, violating the plaintiffs’ civil rights.

A message seeking comment was left Thursday with the state’s Department of Juvenile Services. The department generally doesn’t comment on pending litigation. The Maryland Office of the Attorney General declined to comment.

An estimated 11,000 plaintiffs have sued in state court, according to the attorneys involved. Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson said Wednesday that he believes negotiations for a potential settlement are ongoing between attorneys for the plaintiffs and the attorney general’s office. Officials have said the state is facing a potential liability between $3 billion and $4 billion.

Lawsuits started pouring in after a state law passed in 2023 eliminated the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims in Maryland. The change came in the immediate aftermath of a scathing investigative report that revealed widespread abuse within the Archdiocese of Baltimore. It prompted the archdiocese to file for bankruptcy to protect its assets.

But Maryland leaders didn’t anticipate they’d be facing similar budgetary concerns because of claims against the state’s juvenile justice system.

Facing a potentially enormous payout, lawmakers recently passed an amendment to limit future liabilities. The new law reduces caps on settlements from $890,000 to $400,000 for cases filed after May 31 against state institutions, and from $1.5 million to $700,000 for private institutions. It allows each claimant to receive only one payment, instead of being able to collect for each act of abuse.

Suing in federal court allows plaintiffs to sidestep those limits.

“Despite Maryland’s recent unconstitutional legislative efforts to insulate itself from liability for the horrific sexual brutalization of children in its custody, Maryland cannot run from liability under Federal law,” plaintiffs’ attorney Corey Stern said in a statement. “The United States Constitution was created for all of us, knowing that some would need protection from the tyranny of their political leaders.”

The three plaintiffs in the federal case allege they were sexually abused by staff at two juvenile detention centers. While other lawsuits have mainly presented allegations of abuse occurring decades ago, the federal complaint focuses on events alleged to have happened in 2019 and 2020. The plaintiffs were 14 and 15 years old.

The victims feared their sentences would be extended if they spoke out, according to the complaint. They accuse state officials of turning a blind eye to a “culture of sexual brutalization and abuse.”

Stern said he anticipates more federal claims will be forthcoming.

Skene writes for the Associated Press.

MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin dairy farmer alleged in a federal lawsuit filed Monday that the Trump administration is illegally denying financial assistance to white farmers by continuing programs that favor minorities.

The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty filed the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture in federal court in Wisconsin on behalf of a white dairy farmer, Adam Faust.

Faust was among several farmers who successfully sued the Biden administration in 2021 for race discrimination in the USDA’s Farmer Loan Forgiveness Plan.

The new lawsuit alleges the government has continued to implement diversity, equity and inclusion programs that were instituted under former President Biden. The Wisconsin Institute wrote to the USDA in April warning of legal action, and six Republican Wisconsin congressmen called on the USDA to investigate and end the programs.

“The USDA should honor the President’s promise to the American people to end racial discrimination in the federal government,” Faust said in a written statement. “After being ignored by a federal agency that’s meant to support agriculture, I hope my lawsuit brings answers, accountability, and results from USDA.”

Trump administration spokesperson Anna Kelly did not immediately respond to an email Monday seeking comment.

The lawsuit contends that Faust is one of 2 million white male American farmers who are subject to discriminatory race-based policies at the USDA.

The lawsuit names three USDA programs and policies it says put white men at a disadvantage and violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment by discriminating based on race and sex.

Faust participates in one program designed to offset the gap between milk prices and the cost of feed, but the lawsuit alleges he is charged a $100 administrative fee that minority and female farmers do not have to pay.

Faust also participates in a USDA program that guarantees 90% of the value of loans to white farmers, but 95% to women and racial minorities. That puts Faust at a disadvantage, the lawsuit alleges.

Faust has also begun work on a new manure storage system that could qualify for reimbursement under a USDA environmental conservation program, but 75% of his costs are eligible while 90% of the costs of minority farmers qualify, the lawsuit contends.

A federal court judge ruled in a similar 2021 case that granting loan forgiveness only to “socially disadvantaged farmers” amounts to unconstitutional race discrimination. The Biden administration suspended the program and Congress repealed it in 2022.

The Wisconsin Institute has filed dozens of such lawsuits in 25 states attacking DEI programs in government. In its April letter to the USDA, the law firm that has a long history of representing Republicans said it didn’t want to sue “but there is no excuse for this continued discrimination.”

Trump has been aggressive in trying to end the government’s DEI efforts to fulfill a campaign promise and bring about a profound cultural shift across the U.S. from promoting diversity to an exclusive focus on merit.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has agreed to pay just under $5 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit that Ashli Babbitt’s family filed over her shooting by an officer during the U.S. Capitol riot, according to a person with knowledge of the settlement. The person insisted on anonymity to discuss with the Associated Press terms of a settlement that have not been made public.

The settlement would resolve the $30-million federal lawsuit that Babbitt’s estate filed last year in Washington, D.C. On Jan. 6, 2021, a Capitol police officer shot Babbitt as she tried to climb through the broken window of a barricaded door leading to the Speaker’s Lobby.

The officer who shot her was cleared of wrongdoing by the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, which concluded that he acted in self-defense and in the defense of members of Congress. The Capitol Police also cleared the officer.

Settlement terms haven’t been disclosed in public court filings. On May 2, lawyers for Babbitt’s estate and the Justice Department told a federal judge that they had reached a settlement in principle but were still working out the details before a final agreement could be signed.

Justice Department spokespeople and two attorneys for the Babbitt family didn’t immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran from San Diego, was unarmed when she was shot by the officer. The lawsuit alleges that the plainclothes officer failed to de-escalate the situation and did not give her any warnings or commands before opening fire.

The suit also accused the Capitol Police of negligence, claiming the department should have known that the officer was “prone to behave in a dangerous or otherwise incompetent manner.”

“Ashli posed no threat to the safety of anyone,” the lawsuit said.

The officer said in a televised interview that he fired as a “last resort.” He said he didn’t know if the person jumping through the window was armed when he pulled the trigger.

Thousands of people stormed the Capitol after President Trump spoke to a crowd of supporters at his Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House. More than 100 police officers were injured in the attack.

In January, on his first day back in the White House, Trump pardoned, commuted the prison sentences or ordered the dismissal of charges for all of the more than 1,500 people charged with crimes in the riot.

Tucker and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. AP writer Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A humanities federation and a state council have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to reverse local funding cuts made by Trump advisor Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Portland, Ore., by the Federation of State Humanities Councils and the Oregon Council for the Humanities, names DOGE, its acting administrator, Amy Gleason, and the NEH among the defendants.

The plaintiffs ask the court to “stop this imminent threat to our nation’s historic and critical support of the humanities by restoring funding appropriated by Congress.” It notes the “disruption and attempted destruction, spearheaded by DOGE,” of a partnership between the state and the federal government to support the humanities.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday, maintains that DOGE and the National Endowment for the Humanities exceeded their authority in terminating funding mandated by Congress.

DOGE shut down the funding and laid off more than 80% of the staff at the NEH in April as part of an executive order signed by President Trump.

The humanities is just one of many areas that have been affected as Trump’s Republican administration has targeted cultural establishments including the Smithsonian Institution, the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the National Endowment of the Arts. The moves are part of Trump’s goals to downsize the federal government and end initiatives seen as promoting diversity, equity and inclusion, which he calls “discrimination.”

The humanities groups’ lawsuit said DOGE brought the core work of the humanities councils “to a screeching halt” this spring when it terminated its grant program.

The filing is the most recent lawsuit filed by humanities groups and historical, research and library associations to try to stop funding cuts and the dissolution of federal agencies and organizations.

The funding freeze for the humanities comes when state councils and libraries have been preparing programming for the summer and beginning preparations for celebrations meant to commemorate next year’s 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Requests for comment Friday from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the White House were not immediately returned.

Fields writes for the Associated Press.