lawsuit

At a recent meeting of California’s high school sports governing board, two seniors from Arroyo Grande High School spoke out against a transgender peer competing on their track and field team and allegedly “watching” them in the girls’ locker room.

One of the Central Coast students said she is “more comfortable” changing in her car now. The other cited a Bible verse about God creating men and women separately, and accused the California Interscholastic Federation of subjecting girls to “exploitative and intrusive behavior that is disguised through transgender ideology.”

“Our privacy is being compromised and our sports are being taken over,” she said.

During the same meeting, Trevor Norcross, the father of 17-year-old transgender junior Lily Norcross, offered a starkly different perspective.

“Bathrooms and locker rooms are the most dangerous place for trans students, and when they are at their most vulnerable,” he said. “Our daughter goes to extreme lengths to avoid them. Unfortunately, sometimes you can’t.”

Lily Norcross with her parents, Trevor and Hilary Norcross.

(Owen Main / For The Times)

Norcross said Lily’s teammates had for months been misrepresenting a single moment from the year prior, when Lily had to use the restroom after a full day of avoiding it, chose to use the one in the locker room because it is monitored by an adult and safer for her than others, and briefly stopped to chat with a friend on her way out.

“There’s always more to the story,” he said.

The conflicting testimony reflected an increasingly charged debate over transgender athletes participating in youth sports nationwide. Churches, anti-LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, cisgender athletes and their conservative families are organizing to topple trans-inclusive policies, while liberal state officials, queer advocacy groups, transgender kids and their families are trying to preserve policies that allow transgender kids to compete.

The battle has been particularly pitched in California, which has some of the nation’s most progressive statewide athletic policies and liberal leaders willing to defend them — including from the Trump administration, which has attacked transgender rights and is suing the California Department of Education and the CIF, alleging their trans-inclusive sports policies violate the civil rights of cisgender athletes.

Along with a pending U.S. Supreme Court decision on the legality of policies banning transgender athletes from competing in states such as Idaho and West Virginia, the Trump administration’s lawsuit against California could have sweeping implications for transgender athletes — with a state loss potentially contributing to their being sidelined not just in conservative states, but nationwide.

For the handful of transgender California teens caught in the middle of the fight, it has all been deeply unnerving — if strangely motivating.

“I have to keep doing it, because if I stop doing sports, they won,” Lily Norcross said. “They got what they wanted.”

A coordinated effort

The movement to overturn California’s trans-inclusive policies is being coordinated at the local, state and national levels, and has gained serious momentum since several of its leaders joined the Trump administration.

At the local level, cisgender athletes, their families and other conservative and religious allies have expressed anger over transgender athletes using girls’ facilities and resentment over their allegedly stealing victories and the spotlight from cisgender girls.

In 2024, two girls at Martin Luther King High School in Riverside filed a lawsuit challenging the participation of their transgender track and field teammate Abigail Jones, arguing her participation limited their own in violation of Title IX protections for female athletes. A judge found insufficient evidence of that, and recently dismissed the case.

Last year, Jurupa Valley High School track star AB Hernandez won several medals at the CIF State Track and Field Championships despite President Trump personally demanding she be barred from competing. Critics argued Hernandez’s wins were unfair, despite CIF having changed its rules so that her cisgender competitors received the medals they would have received had she not competed.

AB Hernandez competed for Jurupa Valley High School in the long jump at the 2025 CIF State Track and Field Championships.

(Tomas Ovalle / For The Times)

The challenges to Abigail, AB and Lily competing have all been driven in part by a network of conservative organizations working across California and beyond to oust transgender girls from sports, including by coordinating with evangelical churches, pushing social media campaigns, lining up speakers for school board meetings and working with cisgender athletes to hone their messages of opposition.

Shannon Kessler, a former PTA president and church leader who is now running for state Assembly, has worked within the wider network. In March 2025, Kessler founded the group Save Girls’ Sports Central Coast, and the next month distributed fliers at Harvest Church in Arroyo Grande that called on parishioners to challenge Lily’s participation on the track and field team.

Kessler said the two seniors on Lily’s team, who did not respond to a request for comment, had initially asked if she would “speak on their behalf,” so she did, but she has since let the girls “take the lead.”

“They took the initiative to speak and wrote their own speeches,” Kessler said, of their remarks at the recent CIF meeting.

Norcross said the effort to sideline his daughter has clearly been coordinated by outsiders from the start. He blames Kessler, Harvest Church and the state’s wider network of conservative activists for stirring up baseless fears about transgender athletes, exposing his family to danger and leaving them no choice but to defend themselves publicly.

“It’s not a fair position to be in,” he said.

Tied up in court

Within months of Trump issuing his February 2025 executive order calling for transgender athletes to be barred from competition nationwide, two leaders within the California conservative network turned Trump administration officials — Harmeet Dhillon, who is now assistant attorney general for civil rights, and former state Assemblyman Bill Essayli, who is now in charge of the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles — quickly moved to bring the state to heel.

They launched an investigation into California’s trans-inclusive sports policies, ordered its school districts to comply with Trump’s order in defiance of state law, and then sued the Department of Education and the CIF when they refused — alleging the state’s policies illegally discriminate against cisgender girls under Title IX by ignoring “undeniable biological differences between boys and girls, in favor of an amorphous ‘gender identity.’”

Neither Dhillon nor the Justice Department responded to a request for comment. Essayli’s office declined to comment.

Assistant Atty. Gen. for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon arrives for a news conference at the Justice Department in September.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

The Department of Education and the CIF have called for the lawsuit to be dismissed, arguing that Title IX regulations “do not require the exclusion of transgender girls” and that the Justice Department had provided no evidence that the state’s policies left cisgender girls unable to compete.

The CIF said in a statement that it “provides students with the opportunity to belong, connect, and compete in education-based experiences in compliance with California law,” but it and the Department of Education said they do not comment on pending litigation. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office has slammed the Trump administration’s efforts, and filed its own lawsuit to block them.

Separate from the California litigation, there is a major case on transgender youth athletes before the U.S. Supreme Court.

After athletes successfully challenged West Virginia and Idaho bans on transgender competition in lower federal courts, the states appealed. During arguments last month, the high court’s conservative majority sounded ready to uphold the state bans — but not necessarily in a way that would topple liberal state laws allowing such athletes to compete.

Pressure and resolve

Lily, AB and Abigail — all of whom are referenced anonymously in the federal lawsuit against California — agreed, with their parents, to be identified by The Times in order to share how it has felt to be targeted.

Abigail, 17, graduated early and is preparing to start college but hasn’t stopped being an advocate for transgender high school athletes, continuing to show up to CIF and school board meetings to support their right to compete.

“This is a part of my life now, whether I like it or not,” she said.

Speaking can be intimidating, Abigail said, but it has also become familiar — as has the cast of anti-transgender activists who routinely show up to speak as well. “It’s always the same people,” she said.

Abigail Jones participates in a protest against President Trump and his attacks on transgender people in April in Riverside.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

AB, also 17, said last year — when everyone, including Trump, seemed to be talking about her — was “just so much — too much.”

She felt she had to constantly “maintain an image,” including among her peers, that she was “not bothered by anything and just confident,” which was exhausting, she said. “There were a lot of times I just didn’t go to school, because I felt like I couldn’t keep up that image and I didn’t want them to see me down.”

It still can be overwhelming if she looks at all the vitriol aimed her way online, she said, but “off the internet, it’s a completely different story.”

AB was nervous headed into last year’s championships, but a couple of other competitors reached out with their support and the meet ended up being “a blast,” she said. At track practice this year, she’s surrounded by friends — one of her favorite things about being on the team.

For Lily, the last year has been “different and interesting, in not really a good way.”

She has had slurs lobbed at her and been physically threatened. She sometimes waits all day to use the toilet, nearly bursting by the time she gets home. When she has to use a school restroom, she times herself to be in and out in under three minutes. She took P.E. courses over the summer in part because she felt there would be fewer students around, but faced harassment anyway. Like AB, she feels as though she’s under a constant spotlight.

And yet, Lily said she is also “a lot happier with who I am” than she ever was before transitioning a couple of years ago. She said she’s enjoying her classes and her school’s Gender and Sexuality Alliance, where LGBTQ+ kids gather at lunch to swap stories, and is optimistic about the future — even if things aren’t great right now.

Her dad said watching her come out and transition has been gratifying, because “the smile came back, the light in her eyes came back.” Watching her navigate the current campaign against her, he said, has been “really hard,” because “she has been forced to grow up too quickly — she has been forced to defend herself in a way that most kids don’t.”

Mostly, though, he’s just proud of his kid.

“We had our fears as parents, as any parent would, that, OK, this is a different path than we thought our kid was going to be on, and we are worried about her safety and her future in this world,” he said. “But she is amazingly strong — amazingly courageous.”

NEW YORK — JPMorgan Chase acknowledged for the first time that it closed the bank accounts of Donald Trump and several of his businesses in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol, the latest development in a legal saga between the president and the nation’s biggest bank over the issue known as “debanking.”

The acknowledgment came in a court filing submitted this week in Trump’s lawsuit against the bank and its leader, Jamie Dimon. The president sued for $5 billion, alleging that his accounts were closed for political reasons, disrupting his business operations.

“In February 2021, JPMorgan informed Plaintiffs that certain accounts maintained with JPMorgan’s CB and PB would be closed,” JPMorgan’s former chief administrative officer Dan Wilkening wrote in the court filing. The “PB” and “CB” stands for JPMorgan’s private bank and commercial bank.

Until now, JPMorgan has never admitted it closed the president’s accounts in writing after Jan. 6. The bank would only speak hypothetically about when the bank closes accounts and its reasons for closing accounts, citing bank privacy laws.

A spokeswoman for the bank declined to comment beyond what the bank said in its legal filings.

Trump originally sued JPMorgan in Florida state court, where the president’s primary residence is now located. The filings this week are part of an effort by JPMorgan Chase to have the case moved from state to federal court and to have the jurisdiction of the case moved to New York, which is where the bank accounts were located and where Trump kept much of his business operations until recently.

Trump originally accused the bank of trade libel and violating state and federal unfair and deceptive trade practices.

In the original lawsuit, Trump said he tried to raise the issue personally with Dimon after the bank sent him notices that JPMorgan would close his accounts, and that Dimon assured Trump he would figure out what was happening. The lawsuit alleges Dimon failed to follow up with Trump.

Further, Trump’s lawyers allege that JPMorgan placed the president and his companies on a reputational “blacklist” that both JPMorgan and other banks use to keep clients from opening accounts with them in the future. The blacklist has yet to be defined by the president’s lawyers.

“If and when Plaintiffs explain what they mean by this ‘blacklist,’ JPMorgan will respond accordingly,” the bank’s lawyers said in a filing.

JPMorgan has previously said that although it regrets that Trump felt the need to sue the bank, the lawsuit has no merit.

The issue of debanking is at the center of the case. Debanking occurs when a bank closes the accounts of a customer or refuses to do business with a customer in the form of loans or other services. Once a relatively obscure issue in finance, debanking has become a politically charged issue in recent years, with conservative politicians arguing that banks have discriminated against them and their affiliated interests.

“In a devastating concession that proves President Trump’s entire claim, JPMorgan Chase admitted to unlawfully and intentionally de-banking President Trump, his family, and his businesses, causing overwhelming financial harm,” the president’s lawyers said in a statement. “President Trump is standing up for all those wrongly debanked by JPMorgan Chase and its cohorts, and will see this case to a just and proper conclusion.”

Debanking first became a national issue when conservatives accused the Obama administration of pressuring banks to stop extending services to gun stores and payday lenders under “Operation Choke Point.”

Trump and other conservative figures have alleged that banks cut them off from their accounts under the umbrella term of “reputational risk” after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump was impeached on a charge of inciting insurrection on Jan. 6, though not convicted in the Senate; and he was criminally indicted for his role in the riot and his attempt to overturn his 2020 election defeat, but that case was dismissed after he won the 2024 election.

Since Trump came back into office, the president’s banking regulators have moved to stop any banks from using “reputational risk” as a reason for denying service to customers.

This is not the first lawsuit Trump has filed against a big bank alleging that he was debanked. The Trump Organization sued credit card giant Capital One in March 2025 for similar reasons and allegations. The case is ongoing.

Sweet writes for the Associated Press.

New UCLA coach Bob Chesney will direct his first football season in a historic venue the Bruins have long called home.

UCLA announced on Saturday that the Bruins will play the 2026 season at the Rose Bowl amid ongoing litigation of the university’s right to potentially break its lease and play home games at SoFi Stadium.

“We know how much game day means to Bruins — to our students, alumni and fans who plan their autumn around Saturdays together,” UCLA vice chancellor for strategic communications Mary Osako said in a statement. “Our priority is delivering a strong season experience for our student-athletes and our community, and we have great momentum in our football program.

“During this unprecedented time in college athletics, UCLA will always be guided by what’s best for our student-athletes and the Bruin community.”

The California Post was the first to report UCLA’s decision to play another season at the Rose Bowl.

While the lawsuit states UCLA has formally notified the Rose Bowl that it is “moving on” and that “there’s no way we’re staying long term,” the school has never publicly announced plans to move its home games to SoFi Stadium.

“While we continue to evaluate the long-term arrangement for UCLA football home games, no decision has been made,” Osako said in a statement to The Times in October.

After a judge denied UCLA’s request to settle its legal dispute with the Rose Bowl operators and city of Pasadena via arbitration, it seemed unlikely the legal issues would be resolved in time for UCLA play the 2026 season anywhere but the Rose Bowl.

The city of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Co. filed a lawsuit in October to force UCLA to honor its contract and play games at the stadium through the 2044 season.

The complaint and subsequent filings have alleged that the university has been working to play its home games at SoFi Stadium, calling the move “a profound betrayal of trust.” Rose Bowl officials have since added SoFi Stadium and its operator, Kroenke Sports, to the lawsuit.

UCLA’s lease runs through June 30, 2044, and Pasadena officials say taxpayers have invested more than $150 million in stadium renovations while recently refinancing an additional $130 million in bonds for capital improvements.

The iconic Rose Bowl opened in 1922, is a national historic landmark and boasts ample tailgating opportunities, but some fans have complained about the aging venue’s uncomfortable seating and lack of modern amenities.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Friday as it proceeds toward trial.

Feb. 18 (UPI) — A federal court gave a final ruling Wednesday negating the Department of Education’s 2025 directive that sought to prevent federally funded schools and universities from practicing diversity, equity and inclusion.

The U.S. District Court in New Hampshire issued the ruling that permanently invalidated the “Dear Colleague” letter of Feb. 14, 2025, after the Department of Education backed down from the lawsuit. The letter, signed by Craig Trainor, who was then the acting assistant secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, told schools they had 14 days to comply with the directive or face consequences, including loss of funding. Trainor cited the Supreme Court‘s 2023 ruling on Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, which effectively ended affirmative action.

Soon after, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of New Hampshire, the ACLU of Massachusetts and lawyers for the National Education Association, filed suit to block enforcement of the letter. The Center for Black Educator Development and several New Hampshire School Districts later joined the case as plaintiffs.

In April, the court issued a preliminary injunction stopping the Department of Education from enforcing the new ruling.

District Court Judge Landya McCafferty ruled earlier in the case that the letter’s “isolated characterizations of unlawful DEI” conflicted with the term’s meaning, saying that DEI is fostering “a group culture of equitable and inclusive treatment.”

McCafferty said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that the letter was vague, viewpoint discriminatory and unlawfully imposed new legal obligations.

Plaintiffs said they were pleased with the decision.

“This ruling affirms what educators and communities have long known: celebrating the full existence of every person and sharing the truth about our history is essential,” Sharif El-Mekki, CEO at The Center for Black Educator Development, said in a statement. “Today’s decision protects educators’ livelihoods and their responsibility to teach honestly.”

“While [President Donald] Trump and [Secretary of Education Linda] McMahon want to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion, educators know these values are at the core of our nation,” Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, said in a statement. “The Trump administration’s unlawful Dear Colleague letter and certification requirement have now been vacated and abandoned, underscoring how badly Trump and McMahon overreached in their attempt to interfere with curriculum and instruction.”

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Saturday threw out a lawsuit filed by President Trump’s campaign, dismissing its challenges to the battleground state’s poll-watching law and the campaign’s efforts to limit how mail-in ballots can be collected and which of them can be counted.

Elements of the ruling by U.S. District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan could be appealed by Trump’s campaign, with just over three weeks to go until election day in a state hotly contested by Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

The lawsuit was opposed by Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration, the state Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP’s Pennsylvania office and other allied groups.

“The court’s decision today affirms what we’ve long known, that Pennsylvania’s elections are safe, secure and accurate, and residents can vote on Nov. 3 with confidence that their votes will be counted and their voices heard,” Wolf’s office said in a statement.

“The ruling is a complete rejection of the continued misinformation about voter fraud and corruption and those who seek to sow chaos and discord ahead of the upcoming election,” the statement added.

However, Trump’s campaign indicated in a statement that it would appeal and looked forward to a quick decision “that will further protect Pennsylvania voters from the Democrats’ radical voting system.”

The lawsuit is one of many partisan battles being fought in the state Legislature and the courts over mail-in voting amid the prospect that a presidential election result could be delayed for days by a drawn-out vote count in Pennsylvania.

In this case, Trump’s campaign wanted the court to bar counties from collecting mail ballots using drop boxes or mobile sites that are not “staffed, secured and employed consistently within and across all 67 of Pennsylvania’s counties.”

More than 20 counties — including Philadelphia and most other heavily populated Democratic-leaning counties — have told the state elections office that they plan to use drop boxes and satellite election offices to help collect mail-in ballots.

Trump’s campaign also wanted the court to free county election officials to disqualify mail-in ballots where the voter’s signature may not match their signature on file and to remove a county residency requirement for poll watchers.

In guidance last month, Wolf’s top elections official told counties that state law does not require or permit them to reject a mail-in ballot solely over a perceived signature inconsistency.

The Trump campaign had asked Ranjan to declare that guidance unconstitutional and to block counties from following it.

In throwing out the case, Ranjan wrote that the Trump campaign could not prove its central claim that election fraud in Pennsylvania threatened to cost Trump the election and that adopting the changes the campaign sought would remove that threat.

“While plaintiffs may not need to prove actual voter fraud, they must at least prove that such fraud is ‘certainly impending,’” Ranjan wrote. “They haven’t met that burden. At most, they have pieced together a sequence of uncertain assumptions.”

Ranjan also cited decisions in recent days by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in hot-button election cases, saying he should not second-guess decisions by state lawmakers and election officials.

The decision comes as Trump claims he can’t lose the state unless Democrats cheat, and, as he did in the 2016 campaign, suggests that the Democratic bastion of Philadelphia needs to be watched closely for election fraud.

Democrats counter that Trump is running on a conspiracy theory of election fraud because he cannot win on his own record of fraud and mismanagement.

Shia LaBeouf’s Mardi Gras celebrations in New Orleans allegedly took a violent turn Tuesday morning, landing him in the hospital and facing charges of battery.

The New Orleans Police Department confirmed that officers arrested the “Megalopolis” and “Honey Boy” actor, 39, at 12:45 a.m. in the city’s famed French Quarter. He was charged with two counts of simple battery for allegedly assaulting two men.

A representative for the “Transformers” star did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Police arrived at a business on the 1400 block of Royal Street, responding to a reported assault, officials said. The two men alleged they were assaulted by LaBeouf. The former “Even Stevens” child star was “causing a disturbance” at the business, prompting staff to remove him from the premises, police said. LaBeouf allegedly struck one of the victims and “used his closed fists on the victim several times.”

Police say LaBeouf left the business but returned “acting even more aggressive.” According to the incident report, an unspecified number of people tried to subdue LaBeouf and eventually let him go “in hope that he would leave.” Instead, he allegedly began assaulting the same man as before, hitting his upper body with closed fists. The actor is accused of punching the second man in the nose.

Investigators say people held LaBeouf down again until officials arrived. The actor was transported and treated for unknown injuries and was arrested and charged upon his release. TMZ published bystander video of multiple men standing over LaBeouf as he lies shirtless on a street. The video shows one man punching LaBeouf as he tries to get to his feet. Other bystanders can be heard telling both the man hitting and LaBeouf to “chill.” The video ends with two men holding LaBeouf down.

TMZ also published video of LaBeouf sitting shirtless in the trunk of a police vehicle and video of LaBeouf walking through the French Quarter on Monday.

Los Angeles native LaBeouf has a history of violent and disorderly behavior that shadowed his efforts to move past his Disney Channel days in the early aughts. Following his comeback in the form of filmmaker Alma Har’el’s “Honey Boy,” LaBeouf was sued in 2020 by his ex-girlfriend, musician FKA twigs, for assault, sexual battery and emotional abuse. The lawsuit also alleged LaBeouf abused another former girlfriend. He denied her allegations.

“I am not in the position to defend any of my actions. I owe these women the opportunity to air their statements publicly and accept accountability for those things I have done,” he told the New York Times amid the lawsuit.

The exes settled the lawsuit 2025.

LaBeouf is married to Mia Goth, the horror star known for films including “Frankenstein,” “Infinity Pool” and Ti West’s “X” trilogy.

Two golfers in Washington, D.C., have sued the federal government to try to prevent the Trump administration from overhauling a more than 100-year-old public golf course, accusing the administration of violating environmental laws and polluting a park that is on the National Register of Historic Places.

The suit, which also claims the administration is violating a congressional act governing the property, is the latest in a series of legal battles challenging President Trump’s extraordinary efforts to put his mark on public spaces in the nation’s capital, including the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which he ordered closed for renovation.

At the end of last year, a group of preservationists filed a similar lawsuit seeking to prevent the administration from demolishing the East Wing of the White House in order to build a ballroom — a project estimated to cost $400 million.

Trump, an avid golfer, also plans to renovate a military golf course just outside Washington that has been used for decades by past presidents.

The complaint filed against the Department of the Interior on Friday says that the Trump administration’s reconstruction of East Potomac Park — which includes the East Potomac Golf Course — would violate the congressional act that created the park in 1897. The act established the park for the “recreation and the pleasure of the people.”

The golf course has been recognized on the National Register of Historic Places in part for its efforts to racially integrate in the 1940s. Municipal golf courses make up only 18% of courses in America.

“East Potomac Golf Links is a testament to what’s possible with public land and why public spaces matter,” said Washington resident and plaintiff Dave Roberts. “It deserves better than becoming a dumping ground for waste and yet another private playground for the privileged and powerful.”

The lawsuit came after the Trump administration in December ended a lease agreement the nonprofit National Links Trust held for East Potomac and two other golf courses in Washington. The Interior Department said it did so because the nonprofit hadn’t implemented required capital improvements and failed to meet the terms of the lease.

The Interior Department press office said in an email Friday that it doesn’t comment on pending litigation, but that it would “ensure these courses are safe, beautiful, open, affordable, enjoyable and accessible for people visiting the greatest capital city in the world which is in line with President Trump’s agenda.”

The White House also didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment Friday evening.

Construction on the East Potomac course has already begun, according to the lawsuit. In October, the National Park Service began dumping debris from the demolition of the East Wing of the White House onto the golf course, the complaint said, raising concerns that the materials could contain contaminants that could pollute the air.

As a result, the plaintiffs argued, the administration also violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 by failing to consider the harmful environmental impacts of the project.

The National Links Trust said in December it was “devastated” by the decision to terminate the lease and defended its management of the courses.

The trust said that $8.5 million had gone toward capital improvements at the courses and that rounds played and revenue had more than doubled in its tenure managing the courses. It also said the termination of the lease jeopardized hundreds of local jobs.

The nonprofit has agreed to keep managing the courses for the time being, but long-term renovations will stop.

The first 18 holes of the East Potomac Park Golf Course were built from 1918 to 1923.

Riddle writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Audrey McAvoy in Honolulu contributed to this report.

The Federal Constitutional Court, the highest Court in Germany, has spoken. That sentence is the centre of gravity. It signals judicial restraint. It confirms that the Federal Government retains broad discretion in determining how it complies with its constitutional duty to protect fundamental human rights, including in the sensitive area of arms exports contributing to a warfare that is deemed genocidal by the United Nations.

This assessment is embedded in the legal framework governing German arms exports, including the relevant provisions of the War Weapons Control Act and the Foreign Trade and Payments Act, which define the procedural and substantive prerequisites for export authorizations and directly inform the court’s evaluation of the complainant’s standing. Beneath the formalism in its decision lies an act with profound political weight. The Court states: “However, how the state authorities fulfil their general duty of protection and any specific duties of protection is, in principle, their own responsibility to decide.”

The case concerns German-made transmission components for Israeli Merkava and Namer tanks, widely deployed by Israeli forces in Gaza and reportedly used repeatedly in violations of international law. Germany is one of the largest arms suppliers to Israel.

The Court notes that “[t]he specialist courts have determined – in a manner that is not objectionable under constitutional law – that the legislature and the executive have not remained inactive, but have created a general protection regime to effectively counter the risks of arms exports with regard to the protection of human rights and compliance with international humanitarian law, and that they have also taken concrete measures with regard to the Israeli military offensive and the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip.”

In concrete terms, this means the judiciary will not substitute its own assessment for that of the executive. It does not examine battlefield realities in Gaza – on the contrary, it states that it is unclear whether, when, and how the exported goods would be used in a way that directly affects the complainant, and therefore the complainant lacks a sufficiently concrete legal interest to claim constitutional protection. It will not determine whether particular weapons systems might contribute to violations of international humanitarian law. As long as the government can demonstrate that it has established a system to “effectively counter the risks” and has taken “concrete measures”, the constitutional threshold for intervention is not met. It remains unclear how the government counters risks. Just yesterday, Julia Klöckner, President of the German Bundestag, emphasised the friendship between Israel and Germany.

This evidently shows that the protection system referred to by the Federal Constitutional Court is ineffective in legal practice. When arms exports continue despite numerous indications of serious violations of international law, and affected parties are unable to challenge these decisions in court, the protection regime fails to provide meaningful legal safeguards.

“The Court acknowledges the duty to protect but only in the abstract and refuses to ensure its practical enforcement. For people whose lives are endangered by the consequences of German arms exports, access to justice remains effectively closed,” says Dr. Alexander Schwarz, Co-Director of the International Crimes and Accountability Program at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights.“Especially when life and death are at stake, the rule of law must allow for judicial oversight. Instead, this decision largely removes state action in this sensitive area from review. This is not persuasive.”

If courts do not intervene unless the state has entirely abdicated its duty of protection, then the decisive arena becomes merely political. This represents a discourse in Germany that constantly places Palestinian matters and rights in a political frame, even when they concern fundamental human rights.

The ECCHR is supporting the complainant together with Palestinian human rights organizations Al-Haq, Al Mezan, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR). Shawan Jabarin, General Director of Al-Haq, commented:

“Germany remains bound by international law, including the Genocide Convention, and must not export weapons where there is a clear risk that they will be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law or contribute to genocide. Israel’s conduct throughout Palestine clearly violates international humanitarian law and the Genocide Convention. Germany’s continued adherence to a policy of ‘reason of state’ that defends Israeli crimes regardless of their scale and impact and trivializes the cost in Palestinian lives must be challenged. We will continue to pursue justice for the Palestinian people.”

Neither the legal landscape nor politics are abstract or neutral. The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on charges of crimes against humanity. The International Court of Justice, in proceedings concerning Gaza, has indicated that states have obligations to prevent genocide where there is a plausible risk and to ensure that their conduct does not contribute to such acts. In addition, proceedings have been brought before the International Court of Justice against Germany itself, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention in connection with its support and arms exports — directly linking Germany’s conduct to the duty to prevent genocide under international law.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling does not negate these developments. Nor does it declare German exports compliant with international law. It simply affirms that the assessment of risk lies “in principle” with the political branches.

If the government alone decides whether its general protection regime is sufficient in light of allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, then accountability becomes a matter of parliamentary oversight and public scrutiny rather than constitutional adjudication.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Feb. 12 (UPI) — Former Ohio State University board member Leslie Wexner must testify in federal lawsuits accusing the school of enabling sex abuse by Dr. Richard Strauss, a federal court ordered.

Wexner is neither a defendant nor a plaintiff in three lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court of Southern Ohio, but a Jan. 13 subpoena seeks to depose him on the matter.

Wexner filed a motion to quash the deposition subpoena, which Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers and District Judge Michael Watson denied Wednesday.

They ordered Wexner to participate in a deposition within 60 days.

“Given the timing and length of Mr. Wexner’s tenure on the OSU Board of Trustees, including his time as vice chairman and chairman of the full board, as well as ranking positions on the board’s personnel committee, plaintiffs are entitled to discover what Mr. Wexner knew about Dr. Stauss and when he knew it,” Deavers and Watson said.

“Mr. Wexner’s testimony may also illuminate what the board did to monitor OSU’s sexual harassment compliance,” they wrote.

“If Mr. Wexner or the board had no knowledge about allegations surrounding Dr. Strauss, this would be evidence of OSU’s deliberate indifference,” they added.

Wexner argued he has no knowledge of the matter and never discussed allegations against Strauss while he was a board member or afterward, but the judges said that is insufficient cause for granting his motion to quash the deposition subpoena.

The three federal lawsuits filed by former students name Ohio State as the defendant and arise from the time that Strauss was the campus doctor from September 1978 to March 1998.

Strauss was accused of sexually abusing at least 177 OSU male student-athletes and chose to end his life by suicide in 2005.

His suicide prevented Strauss from being tried in court and potentially convicted of the alleged crimes.

His alleged victims last year held protests, during which they accused Wexner, his security staff and his attorney of preventing process servers from delivering the deposition subpoena to compel his testimony.

Watson issued the court deposition subpoena on Jan. 13 to negate the need for serving him with the prior subpoena, which Wexner’s legal team unsuccessfully sought to quash despite there being no accusations of wrongdoing on his part.

Floyd Mayweather Jr., one of history’s most successful professional boxers, is suing Showtime and a former executive at the company for $340 million, accusing them of depriving him of a “significant portion of his career earnings.”

The 48-year-old retired athlete alleges in the complaint that Showtime “through a complex web of hidden accounts, unauthorized transactions, and deliberate concealment of financial records,” wrongly paid some of his earnings to his former manager, Al Haymon.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, is aimed at the Paramount-owned network and its former president of Showtime Sports, Stephen Espinoza. The complaint alleges that Mayweather’s inquiries about his pay were met with conflicting responses from Showtime, including that “critical financial records for Mayweather’s biggest fights were ‘lost’ or inaccessible.”

Haymon is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

A spokesperson for Paramount wrote in a statement to The Times that “these baseless claims lack legal or factual merit. We strongly reject them and will respond accordingly through the court process.”

A spokesperson for Haymon Boxing declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Over Mayweather’s 21-year career, the boxer has reportedly earned $1.2 billion. He first met his former manager, Haymon, in 2004. The boxer soon entered a verbal agreement with Haymon, allowing him to be Mayweather’s manager for a 10% fee. According to the suit, Mayweather considered Haymon to be a “father figure and relied on him to manage virtually all aspects of his finances and contracts.” Haymon worked in this role for about 20 years, and over time, the suit alleges, he became the “mastermind of the financial scheme,” engaging in “financial manipulation and self-dealing behind Mayweather’s back.”

In 2013, Mayweather exited a long-term contract with HBO to ink a new exclusive multi-fight deal with Showtime. The complaint states that Haymon’s “scheme” consisted of “diverting portions” of Mayweather’s earnings “under false pretenses that Haymon then kept or controlled,” putting fight revenues into “secret accounts that Mayweather did not know about or have access to,” paying himself large sums of money without Mayweather‘s knowledge and allegedly altering documents to cover up these actions.

Mayweather’s new team reached out to Showtime in 2024 for documentation of fight revenues and expenses. According to the lawsuit, his team was told the documents were “‘lost in a flood’ or stored off-site and not readily accessible.”

Mayweather also alleges Showtime still owes him $20 million from his 2015 fight against Andre Berto. The payout was originally meant to come from the proceeds of the Manny Pacquiao fight that year.

The lawsuit contends that by wiring Mayweather’s earnings to accounts inaccessible tothe boxer and saying that key documents are missing, both “Showtime and Espinoza enabled Haymon’s scheme and stymied Mayweather’s efforts to uncover the truth.”

MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

The federal government argued that the surge, which it calls Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is political retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

“Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi lauded the ruling Saturday on social media, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department.

Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis, Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

The Pasadena Jewish Temple and Center filed a lawsuit against Southern California Edison Tuesday, claiming the electric company was to blame for igniting last year’s Eaton fire, which destroyed the congregation’s historic sanctuary, preschool and other buildings.

“Our congregation has been without a physical home for more than a year, at a time when our members had the deepest need for refuge and healing,” Senior Rabbi Joshua Ratner said in a statement. “While we’ve continued to gather and support one another, the loss is deeply felt.”

David Eisenhauer, an Edison spokesman, said the company would respond to the complaint through the court process.

“Our hearts remain with the people affected by the Eaton fire,” Eisenhauer said. “We remain committed to wildfire mitigation through grid hardening, situational awareness and enhanced operational practices.”

The temple had served hundreds of Jewish families since 1941. Congregation members were able to save little more than its sacred Torah scrolls.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, claims Edison failed to follow its own safety protocols despite advance warnings of extremely dangerous red flag conditions in an area known to be at high threat of wildfires.

The complaint points to the utility’s failure to de-energize its transmission lines that night, as well as its decision to leave up a decommissioned line that hadn’t carried electricity for decades.

It also cites a Times investigation that found that Edison fell behind in doing maintenance that it told state regulators was needed and began billing customers for.

“SCE’s maintenance backlog and unutilized maintenance funds show that it was highly likely that the subject electrical infrastructure that ignited the Eaton Fire was improperly inspected, maintained, repaired, and otherwise operated, which foreseeably led to the Eaton Fire’s ignition,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit seeks financial compensation for destruction of the campus, as well as injunctive relief aimed at preventing Edison from causing more wildfires in the future.

The government investigation into the cause of the fire has not yet been released.

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, the utility’s parent company, has said that a leading theory is that a century-old, dormant transmission line in Eaton Canyon briefly became energized that night, causing sparks that ignited the fire.

Edison is already facing hundreds of lawsuits from fire victims, as well as one by the U.S. Department of Justice. The utility is offering compensation to victims who agree to give up their right to sue the company for the blaze.

Under California law, most of those payments, as well as the lawsuit settlements, are expected to be covered by a state wildfire fund that lawmakers created to shield the three biggest for-profit utilities from bankruptcy if their equipment ignites a catastrophic fire. Some wildfire victims say the law has gone too far and doesn’t keep the utilities accountable for their mistakes.

The temple’s lawsuit details how investigators have found Edison’s equipment to have caused multiple wildfires in the last 10 years, including the the Round Fire in 2015, the Rey Fire in 2016, the Thomas, Creek, and Rye fires in 2017,and the Woolsey Fire in 2018.

Investigators also found that Edison’s power lines sparked the Fairview fire in 2022, which killed two people.

WASHINGTON — Families of two Trinidadian nationals killed in a Trump administration boat strike last October sued the federal government on Tuesday, calling the attack a war crime and part of an “unprecedented and manifestly unlawful U.S. military campaign.”

The lawsuit is thought to be the first wrongful death case arising from the three dozen strikes that the administration has launched since September on boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. The complaint will test the legal justification of the Trump administration attacks; government officials have defended them as necessary to stem the flow of drugs into the United States but many legal experts say they amount to a brazen violation of the laws of armed conflict.

The complaint echoes many of the frequently articulated concerns about the boat strikes, noting for instance that they have been carried out without congressional authorization and at a time when there is no military conflict between the United States and drug cartels that under the laws of war could justify the lethal attacks.

“These premeditated and intentional killings lack any plausible legal justification. Thus, they were simply murders, ordered by individuals at the highest levels of government and obeyed by military officers in the chain of command,” the lawsuit says.

The Defense Department said in an email that it does not comment on ongoing litigation.

The lawsuit was filed by the mother of Chad Joseph and the sister of Rishi Samaroo, two Trinidadian nationals who were among six people killed in an October 14 missile strike on a boat traveling from Venezuela to Trinidad. The men were not members of any drug cartel, the lawsuit says, but had instead been fishing in the waters off the Venezuelan coast and were returning to their homes in Trinidad and Tobago.

The two had caught a ride home to Las Cuervas, a fishing community where they were from, on a small boat targeted in a strike announced on Truth Social by President Trump. All six people aboard the boat were killed.

“These killings were wrongful because they took place outside of armed conflict and in circumstances in which Mr. Joseph and Mr. Samaroo were not engaged in activities that presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury, and where there were means other than lethal force that could have reasonably been employed to neutralize any such threat,” the lawsuit says.

The death toll from the boat strikes is now up to at least 126 people, with the inclusion of those presumed dead after being lost at sea, the U.S. military confirmed Monday. The figure includes 116 people who were killed immediately in at least 36 attacks carried out since early September, with 10 others believed dead because searchers did not locate them following a strike.

The lawsuit is the first to challenge the legality of the boat strikes in court, according to Jen Nessel, a spokesperson for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts on behalf of the families, along with the ACLU and others.

Nessel said in an email that the center also has a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking the release of the legal justification for the strikes.

Tucker and Finley write for the Associated Press.

United States President Donald Trump’s $5bn lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase resurfaces his accusations of debanking – the act of removing a person or organisation’s access to financial services.

The complaint, filed in a Florida court on Thursday, alleges that the bank singled him out for political reasons and closed several of his accounts following the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, which was perpetrated by his supporters.

“JPMC does not close accounts for political or religious reasons. We do close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company. We regret having to do so, but often rules and regulatory expectations lead us to do so,” the bank said in a statement.

While the lawsuit was filed in his personal capacity, the concept of debanking has long been in the crosshairs of the Trump White House.

Late last year, the White House launched a high-profile effort targeting the nation’s largest financial institutions, accusing them of closing accounts based on political bias. Within days, Trump signed an executive order restricting banks from denying accounts on those grounds.

Trump has long framed “debanking” as a systemic effort targeting conservatives. But evidence for this claim is limited.

A Reuters news agency review of more than 8,000 complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found only 35 related to political or religious reasons, let alone targeting Christians or conservatives specifically.

The push by banks centres on the use of “reputational risk” as a standard that allows them to weigh the social or political fallout of doing business with a client.

Critics say this practice makes banks arbiters of morality – freezing, withholding, or closing accounts based not on financial considerations but on social and geopolitical concerns. This approach has pulled financial institutions into the middle of cultural and geopolitical debates.

While often cast as a partisan issue, data show that Trump’s core base, evangelical Christians, are not the ones typically targeted by debanking efforts.

A report from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU), a research organisation that looks at the experience of the US Muslim community, found that 27 percent of Muslim Americans and 14 percent of Jewish Americans have faced trouble banking, compared with negligible rates among Christian denominations, especially with Trump’s core base, evangelicals, at 8 percent.

Overall, 93 percent of Muslim Americans reported experiencing trouble with banking access. In one situation involving Citibank, the New York Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) accused the financial institution of not opening the account of a Muslim woman because of her husband, whom she wanted to nominate as a beneficiary and who is a Palestinian Muslim. CAIR did not release the name of the woman at the centre of the complaint.

“It [debanking] is a huge barrier for actually Muslims fulfilling philanthropic goals,” Erum Ikramullah, a senior research project manager at the ISPU, told Al Jazeera.

“It’s a huge barrier for the actual Muslim-based, Muslim-led organisations who are managing relief both domestically and overseas.”

Between October 2023 and May 2024, at least 30 US nonprofits providing humanitarian aid to Gaza have had accounts closed.

“Muslim Americans and Armenian Americans have faced de-banking on account of their last names,” Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat from Massachusetts who founded the CFPB in 2013, said in a Senate Banking Committee hearing last year.

But Trump continues to allege that groups like Christians and conservatives are the ones discriminated against.

Among them include the National Committee for Religious Freedom, led by former Republican Senator and Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. Brownback alleges that Chase closed his account on religious grounds, a claim the bank denies.

Regardless, the push to take on the problem of debanking is a rare spot of bipartisanship in Washington, with Trump and Warren both agreeing that banks should change their ways.

Industry turmoil

A US banking regulator said last month that the nine largest US banks put restrictions on industries that it deems risky, but this has been a long-term issue for several industries.

Operation Choke Point, under the administration of former Democratic President Barack Obama, targeted exploitative industries like payday lenders and arms dealers. The initiative pushed banks to consider entire categories of businesses – and the individuals who worked in them – as reputationally risky, even when that view lagged cultural sentiment.

In response, Frank Keating, the then-CEO of the American Banking Association, slammed the move in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, saying that the “Justice Department [is] telling bankers to behave like policemen and judges”.

Ultimately, that scrutiny affected people working in several industries over the last decade, most particularly in adult entertainment, cannabis, and cryptocurrency.

Within months of the new guidance from the Obama administration, hundreds of adult performers lost access to banking services from Chase Bank. The ability to keep a bank account persisted for adult performers. In 2022, adult performer Alana Evans penned an op-ed for The Daily Beast describing how Wells Fargo closed her account.

The Free Speech Coalition, an adult industry trade group, found that 63 percent of adult workers have lost access to a bank account because of their work in the legal industry, and nearly 50 percent have been rejected for a loan because of the nature of the profession.

“I think that when I talk to a lot of people about this issue, or when I’ve talked to even legislators about this, they really can’t believe it, because it’s never been anything that they’ve encountered personally. The idea that a bank could shut off your account because they disagreed with the type of work you do is sort of inconceivable to most people,” Mike Stabile, the director of public policy for the Free Speech Coalition, told Al Jazeera.

The cannabis business has faced similar problems. Over the last decade, both laws and public sentiment around marijuana use have drastically changed. Now, more people use marijuana daily than drink alcohol, and recreational use is legal in 24 states as well as Washington, DC.

Yet, legitimate businesses that cater to this growing market share and those who work for them have been subject to debanking.

Kyle Sherman, the CEO and founder of Flowhub, a cannabis payment processing company, testified in front of the Senate Banking Committee last year that his employees are routinely discriminated against in consumer banking. He alleged that one of his employees was denied a mortgage because of what he does for a living, as well as others who have had their personal accounts closed.

While state laws have shifted on marijuana’s stance, federal laws have not kept up, making it harder for banks to navigate the reputational risk.

Trump recently eased pressure on the marijuana industry by reclassifying the substance as Schedule III, which means it is less harmful, but it does not change the legality of sale and interstate commerce on the federal level.

“In some of the states that have recently gone legal with recreational and medical cannabis, the individual entrepreneurs [there] were previously considered outlaws. It is hard for a banker to get over the perception that yesterday, you were an illegal activity, and today, you’re a legal activity,” said Terry Mendez, the CEO of Safe Harbor Financial, a financial services company for the cannabis industry.

There has been a bigger about-face with regard to the cryptocurrency industry. At first, crypto was seen as a safe haven for illicit transactions because the underlying technology allowed for anonymous transfers, making it difficult for banks to determine which transactions were legitimate and legal and which ones were not.

As the industry began to move into the mainstream, the challenges were amplified. Exchanges and startups faced debanking or sudden account closures, and even major platforms like Coinbase struggled to maintain reliable banking partners.

“Historically, banks were kind of more naturally averse to crypto companies, going back to like 2018, to 2020, 2021. Crypto companies would often, when registering for accounts with banks, say that they were software development companies to try and avoid the mention of crypto because of fear of not being able to open a bank account, which, of course, then means it’s harder to make a payroll. It’s hard to take in funds from investors; you can’t pay vendors,” Sid Powell, the CEO of the asset management firm Maple Finance, told Al Jazeera.

That was not helped by the collapse of FTX, the notorious cryptocurrency exchange, pushing banks to pull back from working with the crypto industry.

Sentiment is shifting now. Under Trump, who has embraced crypto, financial regulators last year withdrew guidance that suggested that banks should be careful when working with the crypto industry. Powell says the executive order could help crypto avoid debanking in the future.

“It [the executive order] kind of signals to the FDIC and the OCC that they should act in a more balanced way when it comes to crypto companies and crypto startups, instead of taking a more hostile approach, or the approach of kind of lumping everyone in with the worst of the industry, which tended to happen post-FTX,” Powell added.

Powell was referring to the The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, an independent agency created by Congress to maintain stability in the nation’s financial system, and The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, an independent bureau of the US Department of the Treasury, which charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks, federal savings associations, and federal branches and agencies of foreign banks.

Trump’s personal gripes

Trump has also accused banks of not doing business with him, the primary driver of his interest in the debanking issue.

Banks can generally refuse to create accounts for potential customers who could be deemed as high risk.

“The president’s companies have filed [for] bankruptcy repeatedly. There have been years of reporting about financial institutions’ concerns with suspicious financial activity, and the president was found civilly liable for inflating the value of his assets that served as collateral for loans from financial institutions,” Graham Steele, an academic fellow at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, told Al Jazeera.

Reuters reported last year that banks gauged Trump as a financial risk due to his plethora of legal challenges after his first term, including the suit brought by E Jean Caroll, which found Trump liable for sexual abuse. He has declared bankruptcy six times.

He also defaulted on loans totalling hundreds of millions of dollars several times, including a loan to Deutsche Bank. In 2024, a New York court ruled that the president fraudulently inflated his financial worth by more than $2bn.

“Notwithstanding the fact that the president is an inherently political figure, a financial institution could reasonably rely on any of these concerns, grounded in financial and legal risks, not ‘political’ beliefs, as a basis for declining to do business with a customer,” Steele said.

That did not stop the president from pointing fingers at banking giants, including Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan.

“I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that includes a place called Bank of America,” Trump told the executive during a Q&A session at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last year.

The Trump family also sued Capital One last March. The lawsuit alleged that it debanked The Trump Organisation after Trump incited an insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, after spreading misinformation alleging that he won the 2020 presidential election even though he had lost by a significant margin.

Trump debanks ‘liberal’ causes

Trump’s rhetoric on debanking is among his latest attempts to punish entities for political bias, while actively pushing actions that punish those who have viewpoints that oppose his own.

Trump has argued that debanking disproportionately targets conservatives and conservative-leaning businesses like firearms manufacturers. His pressure has moved the needle at Citibank. In June, it lifted its ban on banking services to gun sellers and manufacturers, a policy it put in place in 2018 after the shooting in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 people dead.

In March, his administration announced it would shut down a set of climate grants under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund – known as the “green bank” – a $20bn programme created through the bipartisan Inflation Reduction Act signed by his predecessor, President Joe Biden, in 2022 to channel financing for climate projects into underinvested regions.

Environment and Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lee Zeldin justified the decision by citing “misconduct, conflicts of interest, and potential fraud”, allegations he offered without evidence, and forced Citibank, which was holding the fund’s money for nonprofit distribution, to return the funds to the EPA.

The decision faced legal hurdles. But earlier this month, a US court of appeals allowed the Trump administration to continue axing the programme. The 2-1 ruling was decided by two judges appointed by Trump.

Last year, the White House also pressured companies seeking federal contracts to abandon diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes, which it has long portrayed, without evidence, as undermining merit-based hiring.

Citigroup, historically one of the most vocal supporters of DEI in the financial services sector, scrapped its programme. Citibank holds multiple federal contracts with agencies including the Department of Defense and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Bank of America and Wells Fargo followed suit in February, scaling back their initiatives as well, as did many other companies.

As part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns, the White House has also pressured banks to cut financial services to immigrants. The administration is doing so by trying to cancel the social security numbers of migrants who have legal status in the US, which would essentially cut them off from access to basic financial services, including bank accounts and credit cards, The New York Times reported.

At the time, Leland Dudek, then the Social Security Administration’s acting commissioner and a Trump administration appointee, said the move to cut access would end their “financial lives”.

“There’s a real telling disconnect. They are saying, on the one hand, we wanna put a thumb on the scale and ensure that conservative groups are included in the financial system, while actively working to push out liberal coded groups by either freezing them out of the bank accounts when they get government grants, or trying to investigate and potentially bring criminal charges against the payment platform that serves liberal groups,” Steele said.

Steele questioned if taking on political bias would actually help communities that do not align with the Trump administration’s stated values and conservative viewpoints.

“I think one of the other concerns here is that a lot of this depends on how the executive order is going to be enforced,” Steele said.

MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge will hear arguments Monday on whether she should at least temporarily halt the immigration crackdown in Minnesota that has led to the fatal shootings of two people by government officers.

The state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul sued the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month, five days after Renee Good was shot by an Immigration and Customs officer. The shooting of Alex Pretti by a Border Patrol officer on Saturday has only added urgency to the case.

On Monday, President Trump said he is sending border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota. The president’s statement comes after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, who had become the public face of the administration’s crackdown, answered questions at news conferences over the weekend about Pretti’s shooting. Trump posted on social media that Homan will report directly to him.

Since the original court filing, the state and cities have substantially added to their original request in an effort to restore the order that existed before the Trump administration launched Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota on Dec. 1.

Democratic Minnesota Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison said he plans to attend.

The lawsuit asks U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez to order a reduction in the number of federal law enforcement officers and agents in Minnesota back to the level before the surge and to limit the scope of the enforcement operation.

Justice Department attorneys have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous” and said “Minnesota wants a veto over federal law enforcement.” They asked the judge to reject the request or to at least stay her order pending an anticipated appeal.

Ellison said during a news conference Sunday that the lawsuit is needed because of “the unprecedented nature of this surge. It is a novel abuse of the Constitution that we’re looking at right now. No one can remember a time when we’ve seen something like this.”

It is unclear when the judge might rule.

The case has implications for other states that have been or could become targets of ramped-up federal immigration enforcement operations. Attorneys general from 19 states plus the District of Columbia, led by California, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Minnesota.

“If left unchecked, the federal government will no doubt be emboldened to continue its unlawful conduct in Minnesota and to repeat it elsewhere,” the attorneys general wrote.

Menendez ruled in a separate case on Jan. 16 that federal officers in Minnesota can’t detain or tear gas peaceful protesters who aren’t obstructing authorities, including people who follow and observe agents.

An appeals court temporarily suspended that ruling three days before Saturday’s shooting. But the plaintiffs in that case, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, asked the appeals court late Saturday for an emergency order lifting the stay in light of Pretti’s killing. The Justice Department argued in a reply filed Sunday that the stay should remain in place, calling the injunction unworkable and overly broad.

In yet another case, a different federal judge, Eric Tostrud, issued an order late Saturday blocking the Trump administration from “destroying or altering evidence” related to Saturday’s shooting. Ellison and Hennepin County Atty. Mary Moriarty asked for the order to try to preserve evidence collected by federal officials that state authorities have not yet been able to inspect. A hearing in that case is scheduled for Monday afternoon in federal court in St. Paul.

“The fact that anyone would ever think that an agent of the federal government might even think about doing such a thing was completely unforeseeable only a few weeks ago,” Ellison told reporters. “But now, this is what we have to do.”

Karnowski writes for the Associated Press.