lawsuit

CHICAGO — Chicago has entered what many consider a new uneasy phase of a Trump administration immigration crackdown that has already led to thousands of arrests.

While a U.S. Border Patrol commander known for leading intense and controversial surges moved on to North Carolina, federal agents are still arresting immigrants across the nation’s third-largest city and suburbs.

A growing number of lawsuits stemming from the crackdown are winding through the courts. Authorities are investigating agents’ actions, including a fatal shooting. Activists say they are not letting their guard down in case things ramp up again, while many residents in the Democratic stronghold remain anxious.

“I feel a sense of paranoia over when they might be back,” said Santani Silva, an employee at a vintage store in the predominantly Mexican American neighborhood of Pilsen. “People are still afraid.”

Intensity slows, but arrests continue

For more than two months, the Chicago area was the focus of an aggressive operation led by Gregory Bovino, a Border Patrol commander behind similar efforts in Los Angeles and soon Louisiana.

Armed and masked agents used unmarked SUVs and helicopters throughout the city of 2.7 million and its suburbs to target suspected criminals and immigration violators. Arrests often led to intense standoffs with bystanders, from wealthy neighborhoods to working-class suburbs.

While the intensity has died down in the week since Bovino left, reports of arrests still pop up. Activists tracking immigration agents said they confirmed 142 daily sightings at the height of the operation last month. The number is now roughly six a day.

“It’s not over,” said Brandon Lee with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. “I don’t think it will be over.”

Suburb under siege

Bearing the brunt of the operation has been Broadview, a Chicago suburb of roughly 8,000 people that has housed a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing center for years.

Protests outside the facility have grown increasingly tense as federal agents used chemical agents that area neighbors felt. Broadview police also launched three criminal investigations into federal agents’ tactics.

Community leaders took the unusual step of declaring a civil emergency last week and moving public meetings online.

Broadview Mayor Katrina Thompson said the community has faced bomb threats, death threats and violent protests because of the crackdown.

“I will not allow threats of violence or intimidation to disrupt the essential functions of our government,” Thompson said.

Questionable arrests and detentions

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has touted more than 3,000 arrests, but the agency has provided details on only a few cases in which immigrants without legal permission to live in the country also had a criminal history.

The Trump administration posts photos on social media of supposed violent criminals apprehended in immigration operations, but the federal government’s own data paint a different picture.

Of 614 immigrants arrested and detained in recent months around Chicago, only 16, less than 3%, had criminal records representing a “high public safety risk,” according to federal government data submitted to the court as part of a 2022 consent decree about ICE arrests. Those records included domestic battery and drunk driving.

A judge in the cases said hundreds of immigrant detainees qualify to be released on bond, though an appeals court has paused their release. Attorneys say many more cases will follow as they get details from the government about arrests.

“None of this has quite added up,” said Ed Yohnka with the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which has been involved in several lawsuits. “What was this all about? What did this serve? What did any of this do?”

Investigations and lawsuits

The number of lawsuits triggered by the crackdown is growing, including on agents’ use of force and conditions at the Broadview center. In recent days, clergy members filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging they were being blocked from ministering inside a facility.

Federal prosecutors have also repeatedly dropped charges against protesters and other bystanders, including dismissing charges against a woman who was shot several times by a Border Patrol agent last month.

Meanwhile, federal agents are also under investigation in connection with the death of a suburban man fatally shot by ICE agents during a traffic stop. Mexico’s president has called for a thorough investigation, while ICE has said it did not use excessive force.

An autopsy report, obtained by the Associated Press last week, showed Silverio Villegas González died from a gunshot fired at “close range” to his neck. The death was declared a homicide.

In October, the body of the 38-year-old father who spent two decades in the U.S. was buried in the western Mexico state of Michoacan.

A chilling effect

Many of the once bustling business corridors in the Chicago area’s largely immigrant communities that had quieted down were seeing a buzz again with some street vendors slowly returning to their usual posts.

Andrea Melendez, the owner of Pink Flores Bakery and Cafe, said she has seen an increase in sales after struggling for months.

“As a new business, I was a bit scared when we saw sales drop,” she said. “But this week I’m feeling a bit more hope that things may get better.”

Eleanor Lara, 52, has spent months avoiding unnecessary trips outside her Chicago home, fearful that an encounter with immigration agents could have dire consequences.

Even as a U.S. citizen, she is afraid and carries her birth certificate. She is married to a Venezuelan man whose legal status is in limbo.

“We’re still sticking home,” she said.

Tareen and Fernando write for the Associated Press.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked OpenAI’s use of several monikers, including “Cameos” and “CameoVideo,” for elements of its Sora artificial intelligence video generation products and marketing.

U.S. District Judge Eumi K. Lee on Friday issued a temporary restraining order to prevent the San Francisco AI giant from using names that are part of an ongoing trademark dispute.

The Northern California judge also set a Dec. 19 hearing to delve further into the matter.

The lawsuit was brought late last month by Chicago-based tech business Baron App, which also goes by the name of its product, Cameo. The eight-year-old firm sued OpenAI, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition.

In its Oct. 28 lawsuit, Baron said it has secured several U.S. Trademark Registrations for its Cameo product, which enables fans to engage celebrities to make personalized videos to wish friends a happy birthday or other greetings.

Snoop Dogg, Tony Hawk, Jon Bon Jovi and Donald Trump Jr. are among celebrities who have participated, connecting with fans through Cameo, the company said in its complaint against Open AI. Cameo said its posts have been popular, attracting more than 100 million views in the past year.

The legal dispute began after OpenAI announced an update to its text-to-video tool Sora in September. The update included the launch of a new Sora feature that it called Cameos.

OpenAI’s fall product update gave consumers on the Sora app the ability to scan their faces and allow others to manipulate their facial images in AI-generated environments. YouTube influencer and boxer Jake Paul, who is an investor in OpenAI, participated in OpenAI’s Cameos’ rollout. In less than five days, the Sora app hit more than 1 million downloads.

“OpenAI is now using Cameo’s own mark, CAMEO, to compete directly with Cameo,” Baron wrote in its lawsuit against OpenAI.

Lawyers for the two companies argued their positions in a Tuesday hearing.

Lee’s decision forbids OpenAI and its “officers, directors and employees from using the mark ‘Cameo,’ or any other mark that includes or is confusingly similar to ‘Cameo,’ ” according to her order. “Defendants are ordered to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not [be] issue[d].”

The temporary restraining order expires Dec. 22.

“While the court’s order is temporary, we hope that OpenAI will agree to stop using our mark permanently to avoid any further harm to the public or Cameo,” Cameo CEO Steven Galanis said in a Saturday statement. “We would like nothing more than to put this behind us so that we can focus our full attention on bringing talent and fans together as we head into the holidays.”

An OpenAI spokesperson responded in a statement: “We disagree with the complaint’s assertion that anyone can claim exclusive ownership over the word ‘cameo’, and we look forward to continuing to make our case to the court.”

The move comes as OpenAI has faced blowback in Hollywood as images of celebrities and dead newsmakers were manipulated without their consent.

A state judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed by former Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva that alleged the county defamed him, violated his rights and unfairly flagged his personnel file with a “do not rehire” tag.

In a 26-page order, Superior Court Judge Gary D. Roberts on Wednesday granted a request by the county to reject the lawsuit under California’s Anti-SLAPP law, writing that Villanueva’s claims lack “minimal merit.”

The case’s dismissal is “a major victory,” according to Jason Tokoro, an attorney for the county.

“We are pleased that the Court agreed with the County that former Sheriff Alex Villanueva’s claims are barred by California’s anti-SLAPP statute and had no merit,” he wrote in an emailed statement Thursday. “The County can now close this chapter.”

The decision marks the third time a court has dismissed Villanueva’s assertions that the county had treated him unfairly and caused him to suffer “humiliation, severe emotional distress, mental and physical pain and anguish, and compensatory damages.”

The complaint in Villanueva’s lawsuit filed in June said it was an “attempt to clear his name, vindicate his reputation, and be made whole for the emotional distress defendants’ actions have caused him.”

Villanueva previously tried to sue in federal court. In September 2024, a judge in the Central District of California rejected the former sheriff’s $25-million federal lawsuit over the allegations, then did so again in May after Villanueva refiled the case.

Villanueva did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. The Sheriff’s Department declined to comment.

The dispute began after Inspector General Max Hunstman claimed in 2022 that Villanueva engaged in a “racially based attack” by insisting on calling Huntsman by the name he was given at birth, Max-Gustaf. Villanueva also described Huntsman as a Holocaust denier, an allegation for which he did not provide any evidence and which the inspector general has denied.

The county investigated Huntsman’s allegation and slapped the former sheriff with the “do not rehire” label. Each year, a county panel recommends dozens of government employees be disciplined for a wide range of unethical behavior ranging from theft to privacy violations by adding “do not hire” or other restrictions to their personnel files.

In his state lawsuit, Villanueva argued it was unfair for him to be subject to a “do not hire” designation while multiple public officials who had engaged in illegal conduct avoided the tag. Villanueva has maintained that he never discriminated against or harassed anyone.

“The unprecedented decision by the Board to place Villanueva on a ‘Do Not Hire’ was the result of a defamatory charge of discrimination and harassment,” the former sheriff wrote in the June complaint.

Around the same time Huntsman made his allegation, Esther Lim, then-justice deputy for county Supervisor Hilda Solis, made a complaint alleging that Villanueva had a pattern of harassing women of color during livestreams on social media. The allegation also prompted an investigation and a “do not hire” tag, which Villanueva has disputed.

Vin Diesel will not face further litigation in Los Angeles in the sexual battery lawsuit a former assistant filed against the “Fast & Furious” star two years ago.

An L.A. County Superior Court judge on Wednesday dismissed the complaint from Diesel’s accuser, Asta Jonasson, citing a technicality.

Jonasson said in her lawsuit, filed in December 2023, that she served as Diesel’s assistant in 2010 during the filming of “Fast Five” in Atlanta and alleged the actor sexually assaulted her in a hotel room.

Her lawsuit raised 10 claims, including sexual battery, retaliation and multiple violations of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. The complaint also sought action against Diesel’s One Race Films production company and its president, Samantha Vincent, Diesel’s sister.

Judge Daniel M. Crowley called Jonasson’s argument “untenable” and in conflict with the intention of the state’s legal code in his dismissal document. Also, since the sexual assault is alleged to have happened in Georgia, the judge said California was not the right jurisdiction in which to file the complaint.

Crowley said that California law could not be “applied to any of Plaintiff’s claims.”

The case was set to go to trial in February prior to Wednesday’s decision. Jonasson’s attorney Matthew T. Hale said in a statement Wednesday that “the Court did not decide anything about the truth of Ms. Jonasson’s allegations.”

“The ruling was based on a legal technicality,” Hale said. “We disagree with the ruling, and we are assessing next steps.”

A legal representative for Diesel did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

In her complaint, Jonasson alleged Diesel groped her, pinned her to a wall and put her hand on his genitals without her consent during the hotel room encounter. The 58-year-old actor, through attorney Bryan Freedman, denied the allegations shortly after Jonasson filed her complaint.

“This is the first he has ever heard about this more than 13-year-old claim made by a purportedly nine-day employee,” Freedman said. “There is clear evidence which completely refutes these outlandish allegations.”

SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Department of Justice sued California on Monday to block newly passed laws that prohibit law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks and that require them to identify themselves.

The laws, passed by the California Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, came in the wake of the Trump administration’s immigration raids in California, when masked, unidentified federal officers jumped out of vehicles this summer as part of the president’s mass deportation program.

Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said the laws were unconsitutional and endanger federal officers.

“California’s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents,” Bondi said in a statement. “These laws cannot stand.”

The governor recently signed Senate Bill 627, which bans federal officers from wearing masks during enforcement duties, and Senate Bill 805, which requires federal officers without a uniform to visibly display their name or badge number during operations. Both measures were introduced as a response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that are often conducted by masked agents in plainclothes and unmarked cars.

The lawsuit, which names the state of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta as defendants, asserts the laws are unconstitutional as only the federal government has the authority to control its agents and any requirements about their uniforms. It further argued that federal agents need to conceal their identities at times due to the nature of their work.

“Given the personal threats and violence that agents face, federal law enforcement agencies allow their officers to choose whether to wear masks to protect their identities and provide an extra layer of security,” the lawsuit states. “Denying federal agencies and officers that choice would chill federal law enforcement and deter applicants for law enforcement positions.”

Federal agents will not comply with either law, the lawsuit states.

“The Federal Government would be harmed if forced to comply with either Act, and also faces harm from the real threat of criminal liability for noncompliance,” the lawsuit states. “Accordingly, the challenged laws are invalid under the Supremacy Clause and their application to the Federal Government should be preliminarily and permanently enjoined.”

Newsom previously said it was unacceptable for “secret police” to grab people off the streets, and that the new laws were needed to help the public differentiate between imposters and legitimate federal law officers.

The governor, however, acknowledged the legislation could use more clarifications about safety gear and other exemptions. He directed lawmakers to work on a follow-up bill next year.

In a Monday statement, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced SB 627, said the FBI recently warned that “secret police tactics” are undermining public safety.

“Despite what these would-be authoritarians claim, no one is above the law,” said Wiener. “We’ll see you in court.”

Rams left tackle Alaric Jackson is being sued by a woman who alleges that Jackson recorded her without her consent during sex, repeatedly refused to delete the video and taunted her with it, ESPN reported.

Jackson was not available in the locker room after practice Thursday. A Rams official said the team was aware of the ESPN report but would not comment because it was an ongoing legal matter. Jackson and coach Sean McVay will address the matter on Friday, the official said.

Jackson, 27, was suspended for the first two games of the 2024 season for an unspecified violation of the NFL’s personal-conduct policy. The previous March, the Rams gave him a three-year contract that includes about $35 million in guarantees, according to Overthecap.com.

“It’s behind us now,” Jackson said in September 2024 after he served the suspension.

Asked if the suspension was warranted, Jackson said, “They did what they had to do, and I understand it,” he said. “So I’m just going to move past it.”

Voters’ approval of Proposition 50 means Democrats might win up to five additional seats in the US House of Representatives in 2026.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has joined a lawsuit against California over the state’s redistricting effort, which was approved by a landslide in the November 4 election.

On Thursday, the Department of Justice said it would seek to overturn California’s new map of congressional districts, which was passed through a ballot initiative with approximately 64 percent support.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

She accused California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, of attempting to stifle Republican voices in his state. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

The ballot measure, known as Proposition 50, is poised to redraw the boundaries of electoral districts to favour the Democrats in next year’s midterm elections.

The proposition was designed as a counterattack against Trump’s gerrymandering in Republican states.

In Texas, for instance, the Trump White House urged the state legislature to pass new congressional districts that would allow the Republicans the opportunity to win five more seats in the House of Representatives in 2026.

In August, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the new Republican-backed map into law.

Republicans also expect to gain one seat each from new maps in Missouri and North Carolina, and potentially two more in Ohio. Civil rights advocates have argued that the new boundaries in Texas and Missouri illegally disadvantage minority communities at the ballot box.

Proposition 50 in California means that Democrats might win as many as five additional seats in the House in 2026, in an explicit attempt to offset the new Texas congressional map.

However, the California Republican Party and 19 registered voters sued the state in federal court on November 5, a day after the election was held.

They claimed California’s redistricting effort violates provisions of the US Constitution by unlawfully favouring Hispanic communities.

The Justice Department has echoed those concerns in its complaint. It argues that California’s map “manipulates district lines in the name of bolstering the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race”.

Tonight, California sent a powerful message to Donald Trump. We will fight for our democracy. And we will win. pic.twitter.com/tEcPlxVbi4

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) November 5, 2025

In response, Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Governor Newsom, said, “These losers lost at the ballot box and soon they will also lose in court.”

Newsom has emerged as a prominent Democratic critic of Trump, calling the president’s opposition to California’s ballot measure the “ramblings of an old man that knows he’s about to LOSE”.

Newsom has confirmed he will consider a White House run in 2028 once the 2026 midterm elections are over.

California’s new district boundaries will apply for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections.

Normally, congressional districts in California are drawn by an independent commission, based on the results of a national census taken every 10 years.

Proposition 50 suspends that commission’s work for the next three national elections and instead adopts a map created by the state legislatures.

In theory, electoral maps should reflect the people who live in a given state. In reality, most boundaries are rejigged by the parties in power, in a process called gerrymandering. Legislatures in many states determine how the districts are drawn.

California’s new congressional map aims to dilute Republican voters’ power, in one case by uniting rural, conservative-leaning parts of far northern California with Marin County, a famously liberal coastal stronghold across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco.

The Justice Department is asking a judge to prohibit California from using the new map in any future elections.

Nov. 13 (UPI) — California Republicans are challenging their state’s voter-approved redistricting plan, adding to the ongoing partisan court struggle over gerrymandering.

The lawsuit, filed a day after voters decisively approved Proposition 50 in a special election, claims the new congressional map was drawn in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments because race was unjustifiably a factor.

Proposition 50 amends the state constitution to allow state legislators to redraw California’s congressional map in an effort to counteract Texas’ new map. The map will remain until 2031 when the state’s Citizens Redistricting Commission draws a new congressional map.

The congressional map approved by Texas this year was drawn at the behest of President Donald Trump who called on state lawmakers to add five more likely-Republican congressional seats before the 2026 midterm election.

Richard Hasen, professor of political science and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, told UPI voters historically are opposed to partisan redistricting, making this a novel development.

More than 5.6 million Californians voted in favor of Proposition 50 while about 3.2 million voted against it, according to the vote count by the California Secretary of State’s office.

“It is unusual to say the least for voters to approve a partisan gerrymander through a ballot measure,” Hasen said. “Instead we have typically seen voters approving measures that make redistricting less political. But this can be seen as the voters’ response to Donald Trump for pushing Texas to do a new Republican partisan gerrymander. It is a kind of tit-for-tat that may become the new normal in future redistricting wars.”

The California Republican Party is joined in the lawsuit by several residents, state lawmaker David Tangipa and former congressional candidate Eric Ching. Tangipa represents District 8 at the state assembly. Ching ran an unsuccessful campaign to represent District 38 in 2024.

The complaint by the California Republican Party and co-plaintiffs says the new congressional map was drawn to boost the voting power of Hispanic voters by creating two new districts to “empower Latino voters to elect their candidates of choice.”

“However, California’s Hispanic voters have successfully elected their preferred candidates to both state and federal office, without being thwarted by a racial majority voting as a bloc,” the lawsuit reads. “This is unsurprising because Latinos are the most numerous demographic in the state and California voters nearly always vote based on their party affiliation, not their race.”

State legislatures are not prohibited from considering race when drawing district lines, Justin Levitt, constitutional law professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, told UPI.

The issue for the complainants is whether they can prove race was considered too much. If that can be proven to a court, they must also prove that there was no justification for considering race.

“The complaint seems to lower the standard or wants to wishcast a far lower standard where the simple act of drawing the district to be compliant with the Voting Rights Act is racial predominance,” Levitt said. “They want to skip past the racial predominance subordinating all others line and suggest that because some of the districts pay attention to race that means they’ve got to be super closely justified. But that is not where the line is currently.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Alexander vs. the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP raised the standard for proving racial gerrymandering. A lower court ruled that South Carolina lawmakers diluted the voting power of Black voters by drawing one majority-Black congressional district, violating the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court overturned the decision. Justice Samuel Alito, writing the opinion for the majority, said that state legislatures must be presumed to be working “in good faith” when submitting redistricting plans.

Alito added another requirement, ordering that plaintiffs must submit an alternative congressional map proving that districts could be drawn in a way to meet “greater racial balance.”

The questions at hand in the Proposition 50 complaint are at the heart of a case in the U.S. Supreme Court: Louisiana vs. Callais. The court heard rearguments over the case, which weighed whether the Voting Rights Act is in conflict with the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment, in October.

Levitt expects an opinion on Louisiana vs. Callais may be months away, as late as June, but it could have a bearing on the California GOP’s lawsuit and other redistricting cases.

“Only nine people know what the court’s going to do and I’m not one of them,” Levitt said. “And if the Supreme Court sets off an earthquake then that earthquake will also reach California.”

The California GOP lawsuit already faces challenges set out by the Supreme Court. The court has agreed that partisan gerrymandering does not fit the principles of the democratic process but it also has also ruled that the courts are not the place to resolve these issues.

In the 2019 ruling on the case Rucho vs. Common Cause, Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion said partisan gerrymandering presents a “political question beyond the competence of the federal courts.”

Because of this limitation, lawsuits alleging gerrymandering must demonstrate that race was a predominant but unjustifiable factor in redistricting.

“The Supreme Court said that it’s really hard to prove that race predominated, particularly when there are political reasons for drawing the lines as a jurisdiction has,” Levitt said. “That standard in the South Carolina case made it really difficult for plaintiffs to win these types of cases. And in a context like Prop. 50, where it’s pretty apparent to everybody that the overriding reason to draw the districts was to try to pick up Democratic seats, that makes it super hard to prove.”

A Virginia transportation security officer is accusing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security of sex discrimination over a policy that bars transgender officers from performing security screening pat-downs, according to a federal lawsuit.

The Transportation Security Administration, which operates under DHS, enacted the policy in February to comply with President Trump’s executive order declaring two unchangeable sexes: male and female.

According to internal documents explaining the policy change that the Associated Press obtained from four independent sources, including one current and two former TSA workers, “transgender officers will no longer engage in pat-down duties, which are conducted based on both the traveler’s and officer’s biological sex. In addition, transgender officers will no longer serve as a TSA-required witness when a traveler elects to have a pat-down conducted in a private screening area.”

Until February, TSA assigned work consistent with officers’ gender identity under a 2021 management directive. The agency told the AP it rescinded that directive to comply with Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order.

Although transgender officers “shall continue to be eligible to perform all other security screening functions consistent with their certifications,” and must attend all required training, they will not be allowed to demonstrate how to conduct pat-downs as part of their training or while training others, according to the internal documents.

A transgender officer at Dulles International Airport, Danielle Mittereder, alleges in her lawsuit filed Friday that the new policy — which also bars her from using TSA facility restrooms that align with her gender identity — violates civil rights law.

“Solely because she is transgender, TSA now prohibits Plaintiff from conducting core functions of her job, impedes her advancement to higher-level positions and specialized certifications, excludes her from TSA-controlled facilities, and subjects her identity to unwanted and undue scrutiny each workday,” the complaint says.

Mittereder declined to speak with the AP but her lawyer, Jonathan Puth, called TSA’s policy “terribly demeaning and 100% illegal.”

TSA spokesperson Russell Read declined to comment, citing pending litigation. But he said the new policy directs that “Male Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on male passengers and female Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on female passengers, based on operational needs.”

The legal battle comes amid mounting reports of workplace discrimination against transgender federal employees during Trump’s second administration. It is also happening at a time when TSA’s ranks are already stretched thin due to the ongoing government shutdown that has left thousands of agents working without pay.

Other transgender officers describe similar challenges to Mittereder.

Kai Regan worked for six years at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas, but retired in July in large part because of the new policy. Regan, who is not involved in the Virginia case, transitioned from female to male in 2021 and said he had conducted pat-downs on men without issue until the policy change.

“It made me feel inadequate at my job, not because I can’t physically do it but because they put that on me,” said the 61-year-old, who worried that he would soon be fired for his gender identity, so he retired earlier than planned rather than “waiting for the bomb to drop.”

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward — a legal organization that has repeatedly challenged the second Trump administration in court — called TSA’s policy “arbitrary and discriminatory,” adding: “There’s no evidence or data we’re aware of to suggest that a person can’t perform their duties satisfactorily as a TSA agent based on their gender identity.”

DHS pushed back on assertions by some legal experts that its policy is discriminatory.

“Does the AP want female travelers to be subjected to pat-downs by male TSA officers?” Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin asked in a written response to questions by the AP. “What a useless and fundamentally dangerous idea, to prioritize mental delusion over the comfort and safety of American travelers.”

Airport security expert and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign professor Sheldon H. Jacobson, whose research contributed to the design of TSA PreCheck, said that the practice of matching the officer’s sex to the passenger’s is aimed at minimizing passenger discomfort during screening. Travelers can generally request another officer if they prefer, he added.

Deciding where transgender officers fit into this practice “creates a little bit of uncertainty,” Jacobson said. But because transgender officers likely make up a small percent of TSA’s workforce, he said the new policy is unlikely to cause major delays.

“It could be a bit of an inconvenience, but it would not inhibit the operation of the airport security checkpoint,” Jacobson said.

TSA’s policy for passengers is that they be screened based on physical appearance as judged by an officer, according to internal documents. If a passenger corrects an officer’s assumption, “the traveler should be patted down based on his/her declared sex.” For passengers who tell an officer “that they are neither a male nor female,” the policy says officers must advise “that pat-down screening must be conducted by an officer of the same sex,” and to contact a supervisor if concerns persist.

The documents also say that transgender officers “will not be adversely affected” in pay, promotions or awards, and that TSA “is committed to providing a work environment free from unlawful discrimination and retaliation.”

But the lawsuit argues otherwise, saying the policy impedes Mittereder’s career prospects because “all paths toward advancement require that she be able to perform pat-downs and train others to do so,” Puth said.

According to the lawsuit, Mittereder started in her role in June 2024 and never received complaints related to her job performance, including pat-down responsibilities. Supervisors awarded her the highest-available performance rating and “have praised her professionalism, skills, knowledge, and rapport with fellow officers and the public,” the lawsuit said.

“This is somebody who is really dedicated to her job and wants to make a career at TSA,” Puth said. “And while her gender identity was never an issue for her in the past, all of a sudden it’s something that has to be confronted every single day.”

Being unable to perform her full job duties has caused Mittereder to suffer fear, anxiety and depression, as well as embarrassment and humiliation by forcing her to disclose her gender identity to co-workers, the complaint says. It adds that the ban places additional burden on already-outnumbered female officers who have to pick up Mittereder’s pat-down duties.

American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley urged TSA leadership to reconsider the policy “for the good of its workforce and the flying public.”

“This policy does nothing to improve airport security,” Kelley said, “and in fact could lead to delays in the screening of airline passengers since it means there will be fewer officers available to perform pat-down searches.”

Savage writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Rio Yamat in Las Vegas contributed to this report.

The former chief executive of WPP’s Motion Content Group — the producer behind “Love Is Blind” and other reality TV shows — is suing the ad agency, saying he was fired after he flagged alleged improper billing practices.

In the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Tuesday, Richard Foster said he was ousted after he repeatedly warned senior managers about alleged “kickback practices” involving the company’s “rebate-driven deals” that he said “were unsustainable, unlawful, and a significant threat to the Company.”

Foster, a 17-year veteran, led WPP’s media division that is the producer and co-financier of “Love Island” and some 2,500 other television shows around the world. The division was rebranded in 2023 as GroupM Motion Entertainment in the North America.

Foster alleged in his lawsuit that GroupM leveraged “client budgets to secure inventory deals” from media companies that included cash rebates, inventory discounts and other financial incentives, and that these transactions were not always transparent or disclosed to clients.

Over the last five years, the lawsuit states, the company “generated rebate-driven deals valued between $3 [billion] and $4 billion, of which it improperly retained approximately $1.5 [billion] to $2 billion.”

But rather than confront the issues, Foster claims executives “marginalized him, and ultimately terminated him and his team to cover up their own improper practices.”

WPP disputed the claims.

“The Company is aware of a lawsuit in the New York State Court filed by a former employee who was let go in a recent organizational restructuring,” a WPP spokesperson said in a statement. “The court has not yet made any findings in relation to the allegations and we will defend them vigorously.”

In December, Foster submitted a 35-page internal report emphasizing that there were opportunities to establish a new entertainment division, but warned that its use of rebates could pose “possible legal and reputational” risks to the company.

At one point, Foster alleged that he told one executive, that “WPP and GroupM have ‘been sleepwalking to the edge of a cliff and people don’t want to hear it.’”

In January, Foster said he was asked to discuss the report with Brian Lesser, global CEO of GroupM, who “expressed concern about the legal risks tied to GroupM Trading and said he would investigate this further.” Days later Foster claimed that he received a text from Lesser asking him to send a “sanitized version of the report” and “to exclude any overt criticism of [GroupM Trading] as that is not in the spirit of working together.”

Eventually, Foster said he was terminated on July 10. He is seeking $100 million in damages.

“Richard Foster devoted nearly two decades to helping build one of the world’s most successful media and entertainment creation operations,” his attorney, William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, said in a statement. “When he stood up for transparency and accountability at WPP, he was let go. This case will shine a light on systemic misconduct and the retaliation faced by an executive who refused to go along to get along.”

Nov. 12 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump signaled his intention to push ahead with a $1 billion lawsuit against the BBC, saying he had an obligation due to the “fraudulent” way it had edited a speech he made right before the Capitol Hill riots in 2021.

Speaking to Fox News on Tuesday night, Trump said he had to take legal action because the public service broadcaster “butchered up” the speech he gave to supporters outside the White House on Jan. 6 and had deceived viewers.

The speech formed part of a documentary, Trump: A Second Chance, that went out on the BBC network just before the Nov. 4 U.S. elections, although the BBC maintains that it was not available to view outside of the United Kingdom.

“They defrauded the public and they’ve admitted it. They actually changed my Jan. 6 speech which was a beautiful speech, which was a very calming speech, and made it sound radical. It was very dishonest,” Trump said.

Trump said he had a duty to go ahead and file a defamation lawsuit against the BBC because he “can’t allow people to do that,” in the same way he had been forced to pursue CBS over an interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris that aired four weeks before the election on Nov. 4.

CBS settled Trump’s $20 billion claim out of court for $16 million in July.

The BBC has acknowledged receipt of a letter from Trump’s legal team demanding a “full and fair retraction” of the documentary, an immediate apology, and that the BBC “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused.”

It said the BBC must comply by 5 p.m. EST on Friday, to which the corporation has said it would respond “directly in due course.”

The director-general and the head of news both resigned Sunday after it was revealed the corporation’s Panorama program spliced together two sections of Trump’s speech 53 minutes apart without telling viewers it had done so.

The edited version made it sound as if Trump was inciting his supporters to march on the Capitol and “fight” when what he actually said was that they should all walk down to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically” and “we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

No complaint was raised at the time the documentary aired but the incident has reignited a furious domestic debate about the BBC’s editorial impartiality and the internal culture of the institution which is funded by a $229 annual license that households with a TV must pay.

If the BBC chose to fight the case, which Trump’s lawyer intends to file in the state of Florida, significant obstacles mean long odds on Trump’s chances of prevailing.

For his lawsuit to succeed, his team would have to convince a court that Trump had “suffered overwhelming financial and reputational harm” as a result of the program, as stated in the letter to the BBC.

BBC Chairman Samir Shah has already apologized for what he said was an “error of judgment.”

“We accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgment,” Shah told a parliamentary committee Monday.

However, while that could go against the corporation, as an apparent admission of liability, the case would still have to overcome major challenges.

Legal expert Joshua Rozenberg KC called for the BBC to go further and “draft a retraction and apology in terms that the president’s lawyer finds acceptable” and for the retraction to feature as prominently as the original broadcast.

Writing on his blog post Tuesday, Rozenburg said the BBC would have to pay compensation but suggested that, based on previous legal claims brought by Trump, it would be an out-of-court settlement.

“It won’t be cheap. But it will be cheaper than a billion dollars,” he said.

A Virginia transportation security officer has accused the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of sex discrimination over a policy that bars transgender officers from performing security screening pat-downs, according to a federal lawsuit.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which operates under the DHS, enacted the policy in February to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring two unchangeable sexes: male and female.

The Associated Press (AP) news agency obtained internal documents explaining the policy change from four independent sources, including one current and two former TSA workers.

Those documents explain that “transgender officers will no longer engage in pat-down duties, which are conducted based on both the traveller’s and officer’s biological sex. In addition, transgender officers will no longer serve as a TSA-required witness when a traveller elects to have a pat-down conducted in a private screening area”.

Until February, the TSA assigned officers work consistent with their gender identity, based on a 2021 management directive. The agency told the AP that it rescinded this directive to comply with Trump’s January 20 executive order.

Although transgender officers “shall continue to be eligible to perform all other security screening functions consistent with their certifications” and must attend all required training, they will not be allowed to demonstrate how to conduct pat-downs as part of their training or while training others, according to the internal documents.

A transgender officer at Dulles international airport, Danielle Mittereder, alleged in her lawsuit filed on Friday that the new policy, which also bars her from using TSA facility restrooms that align with her gender identity, violates civil rights law.

“Solely because she is transgender, TSA now prohibits Plaintiff from conducting core functions of her job, impedes her advancement to higher-level positions and specialised certifications, excludes her from TSA-controlled facilities, and subjects her identity to unwanted and undue scrutiny each workday,” the complaint says.

Mittereder declined to speak with the AP, but her lawyer, Jonathan Puth, called the TSA policy “terribly demeaning and 100 percent illegal”.

TSA spokesperson Russell Read declined to comment, citing pending litigation. But he said the new policy directs that “male Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on male passengers, and female Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on female passengers, based on operational needs”.

The legal battle comes amid mounting reports of workplace discrimination against transgender federal employees during Trump’s second administration. It is also happening at a time when the TSA’s ranks are already stretched thin due to the ongoing government shutdown that has left thousands of agents working without pay.

Other transgender officers describe similar challenges to Mittereder.

Kai Regan worked for six years at Harry Reid international airport in Las Vegas before leaving in July, in large part because of the new policy.

Worried that he would be fired for his gender identity, he retired earlier than planned rather than “waiting for the bomb to drop”.

Regan, who is not involved in the Virginia case, transitioned from female to male in 2021. He said he had conducted pat-downs on men without issue until the policy change.

“It made me feel inadequate at my job, not because I can’t physically do it but because they put that on me,” said the 61-year-old.

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a legal organisation that has repeatedly challenged the second Trump administration in court, called the TSA policy “arbitrary and discriminatory”.

“There’s no evidence or data we’re aware of to suggest that a person can’t perform their duties satisfactorily as a TSA agent based on their gender identity,” Perryman said.

The DHS pushed back on assertions by some legal experts that its policy is discriminatory.

“Does the AP want female travellers to be subjected to pat-downs by male TSA officers?” Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin asked in a written response to questions by the AP. “What a useless and fundamentally dangerous idea, to prioritise mental delusion over the comfort and safety of American travellers.”

Airport security expert and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign professor Sheldon H Jacobson, whose research contributed to the design of TSA PreCheck, said that the practice of matching the officer’s sex to the passenger’s is aimed at minimising passenger discomfort during screening.

Travellers can generally request another officer if they prefer, he added.

Deciding where transgender officers fit into this practice “creates a little bit of uncertainty”, Jacobson said. But because transgender officers likely make up a small percent of the TSA’s workforce, he said the new policy is unlikely to cause major delays.

“It could be a bit of an inconvenience, but it would not inhibit the operation of the airport security checkpoint,” Jacobson said.

The TSA’s policy for passengers is that they be screened based on physical appearance as judged by an officer, according to internal documents. If a passenger corrects an officer’s assumption, “the traveller should be patted down based on his/her declared sex”.

For passengers who tell an officer “that they are neither a male nor female”, the policy says officers must advise “that pat-down screening must be conducted by an officer of the same sex” and contact a supervisor if concerns persist.

The documents also say that transgender officers “will not be adversely affected” in pay, promotions or awards, and that the TSA “is committed to providing a work environment free from unlawful discrimination and retaliation”.

But the lawsuit argues otherwise, saying the policy impedes Mittereder’s career prospects because “all paths toward advancement require that she be able to perform pat-downs and train others to do so”, Puth said.

According to the lawsuit, Mittereder started in her role in June 2024 and never received complaints related to her job performance, including pat-down responsibilities. Supervisors awarded her the highest-available performance rating, and “have praised her professionalism, skills, knowledge, and rapport with fellow officers and the public”, the lawsuit said.

“This is somebody who is really dedicated to her job and wants to make a career at TSA,” Puth said. “And while her gender identity was never an issue for her in the past, all of a sudden, it’s something that has to be confronted every single day.”

Being unable to perform her full job duties has caused Mittereder to suffer fear, anxiety and depression, as well as embarrassment and humiliation by forcing her to disclose her gender identity to co-workers, the complaint says.

It adds that the ban places an additional burden on already-outnumbered female officers who have to pick up Mittereder’s pat-down duties.

American Federation of Government Employees national president Everett Kelley urged the TSA leadership to reconsider the policy “for the good of its workforce and the flying public”.

“This policy does nothing to improve airport security,” Kelley said, “and in fact could lead to delays in the screening of airline passengers since it means there will be fewer officers available to perform pat-down searches”.

LONDON — President Trump’s threat to bring a billion-dollar lawsuit against the BBC has cast a shadow over the British broadcaster’s future, but it could also be a bluff with little legal merit.

The president’s lawyer sent the threat to the BBC over the way a documentary edited his Jan. 6, 2021, speech before a mob of his followers stormed the U.S. Capitol.

Trump’s history of suing news media companies — sometimes winning multimillion-dollar settlements — is part of a long-running grievance against the industry he describes as “fake news” that has often focused a critical eye on his actions.

But Trump faces fundamental challenges to getting a case to court, never mind taking it to trial. He would also have to deal with the harsh glare of publicity around his provocative pep talk the day Congress was voting to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election that Trump falsely alleged was stolen from him.

“If he sues, he opens a Pandora’s box and inside is every damning quote he’s ever uttered about the ‘steal,’” said attorney Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer who practices in the U.S. and U.K.

The BBC documentary

The BBC’s “Panorama” series aired the hourlong documentary titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The third-party production company that made the film spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

BBC Chairman Samir Shah apologized Monday for the misleading edit that he said gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action.”

Director-General Tim Davie and news chief Deborah Turness quit Sunday over accusations of bias and misleading editing.

From letter to lawsuit

A lawsuit in England is unlikely because the one-year deadline to bring one expired two weeks ago, experts said. If successful in overcoming that barrier, libel awards in the High Court rarely exceed 100,000 pounds ($132,000), experts said.

Trump could still bring a defamation claim in several U.S. states, and his lawyer cited Florida law in a letter to the BBC.

Filing a lawsuit and demanding money is one thing, but prevailing in court is much different. To succeed, Trump would have to clear many hurdles to get a case before a jury.

Before any of that could happen, Trump faces a more fundamental challenge: The BBC program was not aired in the U.S., and the BBC’s streaming service is also not available there. Americans could not have thought less of him because of a program they could not watch, Stephens said.

“The other ticklish problem for Trump’s lawyer was that Trump’s reputation was already pretty battered after Jan. 6,” he said. “Alleging ‘Panorama’ caused additional harm when your reputation is already in tatters … is a tough sell.”

Trump was impeached on a charge of inciting insurrection over the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by some of his supporters, though he was acquitted by the Senate.

The demands

Trump’s lawyer Alejandro Brito threatened the BBC with a defamation lawsuit for “no less than” $1 billion. The letter spelled out the figure and used all nine zeros in numeric form.

The letter demanded an apology to the president and a “full and fair” retraction of the documentary along with other “false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading or inflammatory statements” about Trump.

It also said the president should be “appropriately” compensated for “overwhelming financial and reputational harm.”

The letter cites Florida’s defamation statute that requires a letter be sent to news organizations five days before any lawsuit can be filed.

If the BBC does not comply with the demands by 5 p.m. EST Friday, then Trump will enforce his legal rights, the letter said.

“The BBC is on notice,” it said.

While many legal experts have dismissed the president’s claims against the media as having little chance of success, he has won some lucrative settlements against U.S. media companies.

In July, Paramount, which owns CBS, agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Trump over a “ 60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump alleged that the interview was edited to enhance how Harris, the Democratic nominee for president in 2024, sounded.

That settlement came as the Trump-appointed head of the Federal Communications Commission launched an investigation that threatened to complicate Paramount’s need for administration approval to merge with Skydance Media.

Last year, ABC News said it would pay $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit over anchor George Stephanopoulos ’ inaccurate on-air assertion that the president-elect had been found civilly liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll. A jury found that he was liable for sexually abusing her. Trump asked the Supreme Court on Monday to throw out that jury’s finding.

Litigation threat could leverage payout

London lawyer David Allen Green dismissed the litigation letter for failing to spell out any actual harm Trump suffered. But he said Trump’s willingness to use lawsuits as a form of deal making could leverage a payout because the edit was indefensible.

“Putting aside the theatrics of a bombastic letter with its senseless $1 billion claim, there is a power play here which Trump has done many times before,” Green said on the Law and Policy Blog. “The real mistake of the BBC (and the production company) was opening itself up to such a play of power.”

Stephens said if Trump were somehow to win billions from the BBC, it could crush the news organization that is mostly funded through a fee charged to all television owners in the U.K.

But he said that outcome was unlikely and the broadcaster should stand its ground. He recommended Trump take the public relations win and avoid the damage from revisiting the Jan. 6 events that would be dredged up at trial.

He said Trump was due an apology, which Shah offered, for the BBC not upholding high journalistic standards.

“The question is, ‘Did it cause harm in people’s minds?’” he said. “Because he was elected afterwards, it doesn’t appear it did.”

Melley writes for the Associated Press.

US president demands ‘full and fair’ retraction of BBC documentary that prompted resignation of two top executives.

US President Donald Trump has threatened to sue the BBC for $1bn over an edited clip that has plunged the broadcaster into a public relations crisis and prompted the resignations of two top executives.

In a letter sent to the BBC, Trump’s legal team has demanded the retraction of “false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading, and inflammatory statements” contained in a Panorama documentary aired a week before the 2024 US presidential election.

The letter, written by Trump lawyer Alejandro Brito, gives the BBC until Friday to provide a “full and fair” retraction of the documentary and “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused”, or face legal action in the US state of Florida.

“The BBC is on notice. PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY,” says the letter, which was widely circulated on social media.

The BBC did not immediately respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

The documentary, titled Trump: A Second Chance?, has been mired in controversy since the leak of an internal memo that criticised producers for editing Trump’s remarks to make it appear that he had directly encouraged the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol.

In the documentary, Trump is shown saying, “We fight like hell”, directly after telling supporters, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol”.

Trump had actually followed his comments about going to the Capitol with a remark about cheering on “our brave senators and congressmen and women”, and made his “fight like hell” comment nearly an hour later.

The memo, written by Michael Prescott, a former adviser to the BBC’s standards committee, also accused the broadcaster of suppressing critical coverage of transgender issues and displaying anti-Israel bias within the BBC Arabic service.

The BBC’s director-general, Tim Davie, and its head of news, Deborah Turness, stepped down on Sunday amid the fallout of the controversy.

Trump welcomed the resignations in a post on Truth Social, accusing the BBC executives of being “corrupt” and “very dishonest people”.

BBC chair Samir Shah on Monday acknowledged that the clip was misleading and apologised for the “error of judgement”, but rejected claims that the broadcaster is institutionally biased.

Shah also said that the memo did not present “a full picture of the discussions, decisions and actions that were taken” by the standards board in response to concerns raised internally before the leak.

Trump’s legal threat is the latest in a flurry of actions he has taken to punish critical media.

Those moves include defamation claims against outlets including The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and ABC News, funding cuts at NPR and PBS, and the removal of Associated Press journalists from the White House press pool.

L.A. County supervisors want to bar “predatory” salespeople who they say prey on vulnerable residents seeking benefits from the region’s social services offices.

The supervisors unanimously voted Tuesday to explore creating a “buffer zone” outside county offices, prohibiting certain types of “aggressive” solicitation toward people seeking food stamps and cash aid. County lawyers have two months to figure out what such a zone would look like.

The looming crackdown follows a Times investigation that found seven people who said recruiters outside a social services office in South Los Angeles paid them to sue the county over sex abuse. Two more later told The Times they, too, were solicited for sex abuse lawsuits outside a county social services office in Long Beach, though they initially believed they were being recruited to be extras in a movie.

“We are painfully aware of the ongoing allegations of fraud and the pay-to-sue tactics used to recruit clients and file lawsuits against the county,” said Supervisor Janice Hahn, who announced she would push for the buffer zone after the Times investigation. “There must be greater accountability both to protect survivors seeking justice and to ensure that fraudulent claims and predatory solicitation are stopped at their source.”

The county’s more than 40 social services offices act as one-stop shops for residents who need help applying for food, housing and cash assistance. Outside many of the larger offices in poorer areas, a bustling ecosystem thrives with vendors hawking goods and services to those in line.

The supervisors said Tuesday they were troubled by some of the offerings.

“Vendors asking for copies of people’s personal documents, trying to sell them products and even recruiting people into claims against the county — this behavior puts residents at real risk and undermines the trust in our public services,” said Supervisor Lindsey Horvath.

Supervisor Kathryn Barger said she wanted to see reforms that would protect both taxpayers and “vulnerable individuals who are being used as pawns to line the pockets of many of these attorneys.”

The motion passed 3 to 0. Supervisors Hilda Solis and Holly Mitchell, whose district includes the social services office where some of the lawsuit recruitment took place, were absent.

The Times spent two weeks outside the South L.A. office this fall and watched vendors seek out dozens of people with Medi-Cal, the state’s health insurance for low-income Californians. The vendors would pay them anywhere between $3 and $12 to undergo COVID and blood pressure tests, which they said would be billed to their state insurance. Some people said they routinely stopped by the location for quick cash.

Giveaways of free phones are also popular for those who are eligible through a government-subsidized program. Recipients have complained that the service on the phones was often short-lived, with some people returning to the kiosks within a few days after their number stopped working.

Leaders at the Department of Public Social Services, who oversee the offices, say they’re limited in what they can do outside their facilities. Many of the busiest locations are in Los Angeles or smaller cities, where the county has no authority. And regulating where vendors can go on public sidewalks has proved a reliable headache for local governments in the past.

Last year, the Los Angeles City Council eliminated the “no-vending zones” it had created in areas where it said street vendors would contribute to congestion. The ban was met with an outcry and a lawsuit from vendors who argued street vending had been decriminalized and the city could no longer outlaw the stands.

Eugene Volokh, a 1st Amendment professor and senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said the county will have to be careful in defining what conduct is “predatory” and what is protected speech.

“The devil’s going to be in the details,” Volokh said. “Whenever you hear words like ‘predatory’ or ‘exploitative’ or ‘harassing’ or ‘bullying,’ you know you’re dealing with terms that are potentially very vague and often, by themselves, too vague to be legally usable terms.”

Rapper RBX has sued Spotify, alleging that the Swedish audio company has failed to stop the artificial inflation of music streams for artists like Drake and is hurting the revenue other rights holders receive through the platform.

RBX, whose real name is Eric Dwayne Collins, is seeking a class-action status and damages and restitution from Spotify. RBX, along with other rights holders, receive payment based on how often their music is streamed on Spotify, according to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in L.A. on Sunday.

Spotify pays rights holders a percentage of revenue based on the total streams attributed to them compared with total volume of streams for all songs, the lawsuit said.

The Long Beach-based rapper said that rights holders are losing money on Spotify because streams of some artists are being artificially inflated through bots powered by automated software, even though the use of such bots is prohibited on the platform, according to the lawsuit.

For example, the lawsuit notes that over a four-day period in 2024 there were at least 250,000 streams of Drake’s “No Face” song that appeared to originate in Turkey, but “were falsely geomapped through the coordinated use of VPNs to the United Kingdom in attempt to obscure their origins.”

Spotify knew or should have known “with reasonable diligence, that fraudulent activities were occurring on its platform,” states the lawsuit, describing the streamer’s policies to root out fraud as “window dressing.”

Spotify declined to comment on the pending litigation but said it “in no way benefits from the industry-wide challenge of artificial streaming.”

“We heavily invest in always-improving, best-in-class systems to combat it and safeguard artist payouts with strong protections like removing fake streams, withholding royalties, and charging penalties,” Spotify said in a statement.

Last year, a U.S. producer was accused of stealing $10 million from streaming services and Spotify said it was able to limit the theft on its platform to $60,000, touting it as evidence that its systems are working.

The platform is also making efforts to push back against AI-generated music that is made without artists’ permission. In September, Spotify announced it had removed more than 75 million AI-generated “spammy” music tracks from its platform over the last 12 months.

A representative for Drake did not immediately return a request for comment.

RBX is known for his work on Dr. Dre’s 1992 album “The Chronic” and Snoop Dogg’s 1993 album “Doggystyle.” He has multiple solo albums and has collaborated with artists including on Eminem’s “The Marshall Mathers LP” and Kris Kross’ “Da Bomb.” RBX is Snoop Dogg’s cousin.

Artificial intelligence continues to change the way that the entertainment industry operates, affecting everything from film and TV production to music. In the music industry, companies have sued AI startups, accusing the businesses of taking copyrighted music to train AI models.

At the same time, some music artists have embraced AI, using the technology to test bold ideas in music videos and in their songs.

CHICAGO — A judge heard testimony Tuesday about overflowing toilets, crowded cells, no beds and water that “tasted like sewer” at a Chicago-area building that serves as a key detention spot for people rounded up in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Three people who were held at the building in Broadview, just outside Chicago, offered rare public accounts about the conditions there as U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman considers ordering changes at a site that has become a flashpoint for protests and confrontations with federal agents.

“I don’t want anyone else to live what I lived through,” said Felipe Agustin Zamacona, 47, an Amazon driver and Mexican immigrant who has lived in the U.S. for decades.

Zamacona said there were 150 people in a holding cell. Desperate to lie down to sleep, he said he once took the spot of another man who got up to use the toilet.

And the water? Zamacona said he tried to drink from a sink but it “tasted like sewer.”

A lawsuit filed last week accuses the government of denying proper access to food, water and medical care, and coercing people to sign documents they don’t understand. Without that knowledge, and without private communication with lawyers, they have unknowingly relinquished their rights and faced deportation, the lawsuit alleges.

“This is not an issue of not getting a toilet or a Fiji water bottle,” attorney Alexa Van Brunt of the MacArthur Justice Center told the judge. “These are a set of dire conditions that when taken together paint a harrowing picture.”

Before testimony began, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman said the allegations were “disgusting.”

“To have to sleep on a floor next to an overflowing toilet — that’s obviously unconstitutional,” he said.

Attorney Jana Brady of the Justice Department acknowledged there are no beds at the Broadview building, just outside Chicago, because it was not intended to be a long-term detention site.

Authorities have “improved the operations” over the past few months, she said, adding there has been a “learning curve.”

“The conditions are not sufficiently serious,” Brady told the judge.

The building has been managed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for decades. But amid the Chicago-area crackdown, it has been used to process people for detention or deportation.

Greg Bovino, the Border Patrol commander who has led the Chicago immigration operation, said criticism was unfounded.

“I think they’re doing a great job out there,” he told the Associated Press during an interview this week.

Testifying with the help of a translator, Pablo Moreno Gonzalez, 56, said he was arrested last week while waiting to start work. Like Zamacona, he said he was placed in a cell with 150 other people, with no beds, blankets, toothbrush or toothpaste.

“It was just really bad. … It was just too much,” Moreno Gonzalez, crying, told the judge.

A third person, Claudia Carolina Pereira Guevara, testified from Honduras, separated from two children who remain in the U.S. She said she was held at Broadview for five days in October and recalled using a garbage bag to clear a clogged toilet.

“They gave us nothing that had to do with cleaning. Absolutely nothing,” Guevara said.

For months advocates have raised concerns about conditions at Broadview, which has drawn scrutiny from members of Congress, political candidates and activist groups. Lawyers and relatives of people held there have called it a de facto detention center, saying up to 200 people have been held at a time without access to legal counsel.

The Broadview center has also drawn demonstrations, leading to the arrests of numerous protesters. The demonstrations are at the center of a separate lawsuit from a coalition of news outlets and protesters who claim federal agents violated their First Amendment rights by repeatedly using tear gas and other weapons on them.

Fernando writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Sophia Tareen in Chicago and Ed White in Detroit contributed to this report.

Universal Music Group said Wednesday it has reached licensing agreements with artificial intelligence music startup Udio, settling a lawsuit that had accused Udio of using copyrighted music to train its AI.

Users create music using Udio’s AI, which can compose original songs — including voices and instruments — from text prompts.

Udio has agreed with UMG to launch a new platform next year that is only trained on “authorized and licensed music,” and will let users customize, stream and share music.

“These new agreements with Udio demonstrate our commitment to do what’s right by our artists and songwriters, whether that means embracing new technologies, developing new business models, diversifying revenue streams or beyond,” Lucian Grainge, UMG’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement.

Udio declined to disclose the financial terms of the settlement and licensing agreements. UMG did not immediately return a request for comment on the terms.

Artificial intelligence has brought new opportunities as well as challenges to the entertainment industry, as AI startups have been training their models on information on the internet, which entertainment companies say infringes on their copyrighted work.

In the music industry, music businesses have accused New York City-based Udio and other AI music startups of training on copyrighted music to generate new songs that are based on popular hits without compensation or permission.

UMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group and other music businesses sued Udio last year. In the lawsuit, Udio was accused of using hits like The Temptations’ “My Girl,” to create a similar melody called “Sunshine Melody.” UMG owns the copyright to “My Girl.”

“A comparison of one section of the Udio-generated file and ‘My Girl’ reflects a number of similarities, including a very similar melody, the same chords, and very similar backing vocals,” according to the lawsuit. “These similarities are further reflected in the side-by-side transcriptions of the musical scores for the Udio file and the original recording.”

Udio said on its website at the time that it stands by its technology and that its AI model learns from examples, similar to how students listen to music and study scores.

“The goal of model training is to develop an understanding of musical ideas — the basic building blocks of musical expression that are owned by no one,” Udio had said in a statement. “We are completely uninterested in reproducing content in our training set.”

On Wednesday, Udio’s CEO and co-founder, Andrew Sanchez, said he was thrilled at the opportunity to work with UMG “to redefine how AI empowers artists and fans.”

The collaboration is the first music licensing agreement that Udio has reached with a major music label.

“This moment brings to life everything we’ve been building toward — uniting AI and the music industry in a way that truly champions artists,” Sanchez said in a statement. “Together, we’re building the technological and business landscape that will fundamentally expand what’s possible in music creation and engagement.”

Udio said that artists can opt in to the new platform and will be compensated, but declined to go into the specifics or the artists involved.

Udio, launched in 2024, was co-founded by former Google DeepMind employees. Udio’s backers include music artist will.i.am, Instagram co-founder and Anthropic’s chief product officer Mike Krieger and venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.

Udio said millions of people have used Udio since it launched in 2024. Users can access the platform through its app or website. The company did not break out specifically how many downloads or website users it has.

Udio has had 128,000 app downloads in Apple’s App Store since its app was released in May, according to estimates from New York-based mobile analytics firm Appfigures.

On Thursday, UMG also announced a partnership with London-based Stability AI to develop music creation tools powered by AI for artists, producers and songwriters.

NEW YORK — President Trump’s request to add a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form cannot be enforced, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., sided with Democratic and civil rights groups that sued the Trump administration over his executive order to overhaul U.S. elections.

She ruled that the proof-of-citizenship directive is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, dealing a blow to the administration and its allies who have argued that such a mandate is necessary to restore public confidence that only Americans are voting in U.S. elections.

“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her opinion.

She further emphasized that on matters related to setting qualifications for voting and regulating federal election procedures “the Constitution assigns no direct role to the President in either domain.”

Kollar-Kotelly echoed comments she made when she granted a preliminary injunction over the issue.

The ruling grants the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment that prohibits the proof-of-citizenship requirement from going into effect. It says the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which has been considering adding the requirement to the federal voter form, is permanently barred from taking action to do so.

A message seeking comment from the White House was not immediately returned.

The lawsuit brought by the DNC and various civil rights groups will continue to play out to allow the judge to consider other challenges to Trump’s order. That includes a requirement that all mailed ballots be received, rather than just postmarked, by Election Day.

Other lawsuits against Trump’s election executive order are ongoing.

In early April, 19 Democratic state attorneys general asked a separate federal court to reject Trump’s executive order. Washington and Oregon, where virtually all voting is done with mailed ballots, followed with their own lawsuit against the order.

Swenson and Riccardi write for the Associated Press.