lawsuit

The parents of Doug Martin filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that police officers used excessive force in trying to subdue the former NFL running back while he was “experiencing a mental health crisis” last October.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the Northern District of California, also claims that paramedics contributed to Martin’s death by failing to “provide timely medical care.” The city of Oakland, several police officers and emergency medical service provider Falck USA/Northern California were named as defendants.

Martin died Oct. 18 in a hospital following his arrest by officers responding to reports of a break-in at a residence. He was 36. His death remains under investigation by Oakland police.

According to the Alameda County coroner’s office, Martin’s autopsy reports still are being finalized. Martin family attorney John Burris told the Athletic that an independent pathologist told the family that Martin potentially died from restraint asphyxia.

“Plaintiffs allege, on information and belief, that Decedent Martin died from restraint asphyxia caused by Oakland police officers and the FALCK NORCAL paramedics’ failure to provide timely medical care,” the lawsuit states.

The Oakland Police Department and Falck Norcal did not immediately respond to messages from The Times.

According to the complaint, Martin was “experiencing a mental health crisis” when his mother called for paramedics. He then fled and hid in a neighbor’s basement, where officers found him.

“After a brief struggle, defendant police officers physically restrained him,” the complaint states. “During the restraint, decedent Martin was placed face down while one or more officers pressed on his back. After a period of time, defendant Officers turned him onto his side.

“When they did so decedent Martin was unresponsive seemingly unconscious; However, the defendant officers initially believed he was sleeping or pretending to be sleep. When decedent Martin remained unresponsive, an officer requested medical assistance.

“Plaintiffs are informed and believe that decedent Martin did not receive immediate medical attention. Falck paramedics arrived over 15 minutes after the call for service and, and when they arrived, did not promptly provide medical care.”

A Stockton native, Martin was a first-round pick by Tampa Bay in the 2012 draft. He played six seasons for the Buccaneers, making the Pro Bowl in 2012 and 2015, before spending his final season with the Oakland Raiders in 2018. In his career, Martin rushed for 5,356 yards and 30 touchdowns.

June 26 (UPI) — The District of Columbia and the American Civil Liberties Union on Friday settled a lawsuit over the wrongful arrest of a man for protesting the National Guard’s presence in the capital.

Sam O’Hara, who was arrested last year for repeatedly playing the “Imperial March” — Darth Vader‘s theme music in the Star Wars movie franchise — behind members of the Guard who were on patrol in the District, will be paid an undisclosed amount of money in exchange for dropping his lawsuit.

The ACLU filed the finalized settlement on behalf of O’Hara on Friday, ending a months-long negotiation with officials in Washington, D.C., and its Metropolitan Police Department, but a suit against the Ohio National Guard sergeant who had him cuffed and detained was still in litigation, USA Today reported.

“Our right to free speech grants us the freedom to criticize the government,” Scott Michelman, legal director for the ACLU’s Washington, D.C., chapter, told The New York Times.

“Government officials don’t have to like it, but they can’t punish someone for their speech,” Michelman said, noting that O’Hara’s settlement was “not a significant amount” and that the number will not be disclosed.

O’Hara had for months been protesting President Donald Trump‘s deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., by playing Vader’s theme music toward members of the Guard and recording the interactions.

On Sept. 11, however, an Ohio National Guard sergeant told O’Hara that if he continued his protest the MPD would be called to “handle” the situation.

When O’Hara ignored the command, MPD officers were called to the scene and handcuffed him in an effort to end the protest and accused him of harassing members of the Guard, but later released him without charges.

In a statement, O’Hara said the law enforcement effort to end his protest “ultimately backfired and brought more attention to the unjust deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C.”

“This settlement serves as a reminder that constitutional freedoms are worth defending, especially when those in power would prefer we stay quiet,” O’Hara said.

The MPD said in a statement after the settlement was announced that its internal affairs bureau is investigating the incident, but also noted that its department policies would not change.

“MPD recognizes the importance of upholding First Amendment rights of individuals to peacefully express their views and is dedicated to facilitating lawful demonstrations while maintaining public safety and order,” the department said in its statement.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Thursday to crack down on inflated profits stemming from car crash lawsuits, blessing a hard-fought compromise between Uber and the state’s trial attorneys that averts a November showdown between two of California’s most powerful and moneyed lobbying forces.

The deal, the fruit of months of negotiations, takes aim at the lucrative way doctors can charge for procedures on patients referred to them by personal injury lawyers.

If a law firm has a client who was hurt in a car accident, the lawyer will often send them to a doctor who will perform surgery on a “lien” basis, meaning the doctor will be paid from money that comes from a lawsuit settlement rather than through insurance.

Uber contends this arrangement has created an incentive for doctors and attorneys to collude to dramatically inflate medical bills. The more expensive the bill, they say, the bigger the resulting payout.

The law, SB 623, caps how much these doctors can charge when their patient is involved in a lawsuit against a ride-share company, which are frequent targets of litigation due to their top-of-the-line insurance policies. The new law will also require Uber to ramp up background checks of its drivers.

“We’re going to have a much safer state both for medical patients and passengers in Ubers,” said Nicholas Rowley, a prominent Texas attorney who helped bankroll the fight and took a leading role in the negotiations.

The law only applies to cases that involve ride-share accidents that take place after Jan. 1, 2027.

“This legislation puts meaningful guardrails in place to better protect accident victims, increase transparency and accountability in the medical lien system and strengthen safety,” said Ramona Prieto, Uber’s head of public policy for the Western U.S., in a statement.

For months, Uber and lawyers from across the state poured tens of millions into dueling ballot measures that threatened to devastate the profits of whichever side lost.

Uber fired the first shot with a ballot measure that sought to cap how much attorneys can earn in lawsuits involving auto accidents. The company argued attorneys were swindling their own clients, inflating medical bills of car crash victims to increase the value of the settlement and then pocketing a hefty chunk of the payouts.

The state’s trial attorneys countered that the fee cap would make small or difficult cases a money-losing endeavor and block scores of accident victims from the courts. They shot back with their own ballot measure that would increase legal liability for ride-share companies if a passenger or driver is sexually assaulted while on a ride, seizing on investigative reporting that highlighted assaults in Ubers.

“They were waiting for us to blink and we didn’t,” said Douglas Saeltzer, the head of the Consumer Attorneys of California, the lawyer trade group that pushed for the measure against Uber. “Their starting place, I don’t believe, was in the interest of protecting victims — it was in the interest of protecting Uber.”

With the passage of Thursday’s law, both sides have agreed to pull their respective measures from the November ballot, halting campaigns that had both parties amassing tens of millions in funding and blanketing the airwaves with ads.

“Now we can stop seeing all the commercials,” said Assemblymember Blanca Pancheo (D-Downey) at a Tuesday hearing.

The law, put forward by Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) and Sen. Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana), also caps the amount that can be earned by third-party investors who buy out a doctor’s lien in a personal injury case. These companies will purchase a doctor’s stake in the case at a reduced rate, then pocket a share of the payout if the case settles.

“Private equity and hedge funds buy them at a steep discount, then turn around and collect the full inflated amount,” Saeltzer said at a Tuesday hearing on the bill. “That’s money flowing to Wall Street investors, not patients.”

The law will require annual background checks for ride-share drivers and expand the list of offenses that disqualify someone from the job.

In addition to the ballot battle, has Uber sued two of LA’s most well-known personal injury firms — the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani and Downtown L.A. Law Group — accusing them of inflating medical bills and forcing clients to undergo needless and expensive surgeries to inflate the value of the claim. The firms asked the judge to dismiss the case Wednesday, arguing Uber had failed to prove fraud. Both firms have vehemently denied wrongdoing.

The lawsuit, filed last year, has put the plaintiff lawyers in the unusual position of playing defense. Listening in the audience at Wednesday’s hearings were the partners of Downtown L.A. Law Group and Jacob Emrani.

“Let’s be clear about what this Uber case really is,” said John Hueston, outside counsel for Emrani. “It’s brought by a $150 billion dollar company … to intimidate the plaintiff’s bar, exhaust its resources and chill the suits that hold Uber accountable.”

Michael Huston, one of the lawyers who represents Uber, countered that the case is “not an attack on the plaintiff’s bar.”

“We have brought suit against the two in this state … that are engaged in naked fraud,” he said.

BOSTON — A federal judge on Thursday halted President Trump’s executive order that sought to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Obama, sided with a coalition of nearly two dozen states that challenged the Republican president’s order in granting a summary judgment. Her ruling applies to this year’s midterm election cycle.

Plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits, both filed in federal court in Boston, that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. The judge agreed, noting in her ruling that the provisions of Trump’s order “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”

It was the second ruling in as many days against executive orders Trump has signed seeking oversight of the nation’s elections. A separate ruling Wednesday prohibited an executive order he had signed last year that would have required people to show documents proving their citizenship when registering to vote.

The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits challenging the order seeking to establish a federal voter list, argued that the motions are premature and that plaintiffs lacked the legal basis to bring their claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

But in an interim order before Thursday’s ruling, Talwani said the motions pertaining to this year’s election cycle were relevant: “In light of the EO’s specific deadlines over the next three months, and the reality that elections will be occurring throughout this period with the November 3, 2026 midterm occurring in just five months, postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs,” she wrote. That order denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the challenges.

Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.

Trump issued his second order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.

The Postal Service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.

The lawsuit seeking summary judgment was filed by Democratic attorneys general representing 22 states and the District of Columbia. Also signing on were attorneys representing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, which has a Republican attorney general.

The states also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution. Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, had argued that no one would be prosecuted for violating the order.

In a separate lawsuit filed against the executive order, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in May agreed with the Trump administration that it was too early to block the order because it had yet to be implemented. That lawsuit was brought by Democratic and civil rights groups, who have appealed.

Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided with the maker of the Roundup weedkiller Thursday in a ruling expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.

The case came before the justices after a tidal wave of litigation that included some multibillion-dollar verdicts against the global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer, which acquired Roundup when it bought its original manufacturer Monsanto in 2018.

The decision is a victory for the Trump administration, but one that could be tricky politically since allies in the Make America Healthy Again movement want to rein in pesticide use.

The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, found that the company can’t be sued in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label.

The decision “is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation,” Bayer said in a statement. “It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles.”

Though Bayer said the ruling should result in the dismissal of pending lawsuits containing failure-to-warn allegations, the company said it plans to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement intended to resolve many of the remaining claims.

Lawyers for some residents pursuing Roundup litigation criticized the court’s decision.

“This Supreme Court ruling wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides,” said attorney Christopher Seeger, who is proposed as a claimants’ representative in the settlement. But he said a settlement still would allow some people to receive compensation.

The case before the Supreme Court was filed by Missouri resident John Durnell. He developed a cancer called non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after more than 20 years of serving as the neighborhood association’s “spray guy,” using Roundup on parks in his historic St. Louis community.

A jury agreed that the company failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers and awarded him $1.25 million. It’s one of thousands of similar cases, including some multibillion-dollar damage awards.

There’s still fierce debate about cancer and Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it’s not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.

The agency approved a label without a cancer warning, and Bayer argues that it’s required to follow those federal standards — not the state laws that Durnell and others have sued under. The ruling still could allow other suits alleging problems with the way the product was designed, his attorney Ashley Keller has said.

Bayer disputes the cancer claims but previously set aside $16 billion to settle cases, and earlier this year proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement. A federal judge recently ruled that the proposed settlement will be heard in a Missouri state court, where many of the lawsuits have been filed. At the same time, the company has tried to persuade states to pass laws shielding it from liability in failure-to-warn lawsuits, and three states have agreed.

About 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been made against Bayer, mostly from home users. It has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market.

The company has said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if it keeps getting sued. Agricultural industry group say could have a devastating effect on the food supply.

But pesticides have also created a rift between the Trump administration and members of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s MAHA movement, adding to their frustration with an executive order aimed at boosting glyphosate’s production.

Kennedy himself has said repeatedly that glyphosate causes cancer, even as he says he recognizes the executive order was necessary for food supply and national security reasons.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press. AP writer David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., contributed to this report.

Less than two months after being sued by two former housekeepers, Kylie Jenner has been hit with a third workplace lawsuit. The beauty mogul’s former private chef alleges a grueling workload led to her miscarriage.

Filed Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court, the complaint alleges the woman routinely worked 11- to 12-hour shifts, five days a week, and was assigned physically demanding tasks despite alerting supervisors to her high-risk pregnancy.

A representative for Jenner did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.

According to the filing, reviewed by The Times, the woman was told she was selected to work as Jenner’s private chef around Thanksgiving 2024. In early December 2024, the woman claims she informed her supervisors, also named as defendants, that she was three months pregnant and “required reasonable accommodations to protect her health and pregnancy.”

On New Year’s Eve in 2024, supervisors who had allegedly been hostile with the former chef directed her to “lift and transport heavy food items across the street and uphill without assistance,” the documents say.

As a result of the physical exertion, the former chef claims that she “became dizzy, began choking and gasping for air, and required assistance from security personnel, who intervened by providing water and aid.”

Around Feb. 1, 2025, the then-chef, five months’ pregnant at the time, was assigned to work Jenner’s child’s birthday event in Palm Springs, where she wasn’t provided “adequate support” despite the scale and demands of the party, according to the lawsuit. The former chef claims that when she asked for help and expressed concern over the workload, she was ignored by supervisors.

“Due to exhaustion and overwhelming physical strain, [she] broke down emotionally in the bathroom during the event,” reads the suit. “That evening, [she] experienced extreme physical exhaustion and heaviness throughout her body as a result of the prolonged and intense workload.”

The next morning, while the former chef was still in Palm Springs, the filing states that she awoke experiencing severe hemorrhaging and drove herself to the emergency room. “At the hospital, [she] was informed that there was no detectable heartbeat and that she had lost her unborn child.”

According to the former chef, she informed her supervisors of the miscarriage and medical emergency and, in the following days, was “falsely accused of leaving the kitchen and refrigerator in disarray following the Palm Springs event,” the lawsuit states.

The court documents claim that the former chef suffered severe hemorrhaging again on Feb. 8 and collapsed in her bathroom. The filing states that after the miscarriage she suffered severe depression and emotional distress, and claims that a supervisor reprimanded her, saying, “Stop it, just stop it. You are upsetting Kylie. You are making her depressed.”

“Celebrity status does not exempt anyone from California’s employment laws. We look forward to presenting the evidence in court and allowing the facts to speak for themselves,” attorney Della Shaker told The Times.

The former chef is seeking an unspecified amount of damages and claims that in addition to suffering accommodation failures, pregnancy discrimination and harassment, she was misclassified as an independent contractor, did not get paid on time or for the appropriate hours she worked, and was wrongfully terminated.

After being let go, the former chef claims that she sent a formal written complaint to co-defendant Tri Star detailing the alleged discrimination, harassment and wage theft. The lawsuit states that on May 22, 2025, the management team sent her an email offering a settlement and release agreement (essentially offering her money to sign away her right to sue).

The legal filing follows two lawsuits brought by former housekeepers of the embattled reality star. Less than two weeks after one woman on Jenner’s cleaning staff sued her, claiming her co-workers harassed and discriminated against her, another housekeeper came forward with allegations claiming the “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” star didn’t intervene while she suffered abuse from fellow staff, despite the housekeeper slipping the reality star a letter pleading for help.

Shaker also represents Angelica Hernandez Vasquez, who filed the suit against Jenner on April 17, and Juana Delgado Soto, who filed her lawsuit on April 29.

Attorneys general in seventeen states are suing California over its landmark single-use plastic law, which went into effect on June 1.

The lawsuit comes after a coalition of environmental groups sued the state over the same law this month, arguing the new final regulations create loopholes so large they gut the law.

The states are led by Nebraska Atty. Gen. Mike Hilgers, and the plaintiffs include the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors. The coalition is asking the court to block enforcement of the law immediately.

“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country,” said Hilgers in a news release. “If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities.”

The other states in the coalition are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Eastern California in Sacramento on Monday.

State Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022. It was considered landmark legislation because it requires plastic and packaging companies to use less single-use plastic and ensure by 2032 that all food packaging is either recyclable or compostable.

Accumulating plastic waste is overwhelming waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.

The intent was not only to reduce single=use plastic, but also to put the onus and cost of dealing with it on packaging producers and manufacturers, not consumers and local governments. It was supposed to incentivize companies to consider the fate of their products and spur innovation in material redesign.

Plastic bottles of dishwashing liquid at Compton’s Market in Sacramento on June 17, 2022.

(Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed during 2023 in California.

The single-use plastic law is what is known as a producer responsibility law. It emphasizes the idea of a “circular economy” in which the producer of a material must consider its fate — making sure it can be reused or recycled, or at least reduced.

In California, all producers of single-use packaging and plastic foodware (plates, knives, spoons, etc.) join a private entity known as a producer responsibility organization. Only one such organization has been approved in California: the Circular Action Alliance.

The states and the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors say the plastic law discriminates against businesses selling into the state in two ways: by making them change or alter their plastic packaging and by conferring government authority upon the alliance, enabling a private entity to regulate and impose taxes and fees on businesses selling into California.

“California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Eric Hoplin, president and chief executive of the wholesalers group, said in a statement. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”

In addition, the attorneys general say the law suppresses their free speech by compelling companies to join and fund the speech of an organization with which they may disagree.

Hoplin and his organization filed a similar suit in Oregon in February. Oregon has a comparable single-use plastic law. A federal judge blocked enforcement of that law. A trial begins on July 13.

Heidi Sanborn, executive director and CEO of the National Stewardship Action Council, which advocates for the producer responsibility laws and a more circular economy, said in May that both SB 54 and the Oregon law are public policies that were “passed by legislatures and implemented with government oversight.”

She said the laws create clear and consistent rules so all producers contribute fairly to the cost of recycling and waste management.

Meanwhile, environmental groups are also unhappy.

On June 2, Oceana, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Californians Against Waste Foundation filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court.

They allege that the final regulations for the law, drafted and approved by the state’s waste agency, include exclusions for large categories of plastic packaging that companies could use indefinitely. In addition, they say, the regulations also allow for recycling technologies that pollute, such as chemical recycling, which the law as originally drafted forbids.

“While SB 54 remains a monumental achievement as the nation’s strongest single-use plastic reduction law, some of the final regulations implementing the statute undermine the law’s ambitions,” Christy Leavitt, Oceana’s senior campaign director, said in a statement.

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration that sought to block what it called L.A.’s “illegal” sanctuary city law.

In a weekend ruling, U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin granted the city’s motion to dismiss the complaint, which alleged that the city ordinance violates the intergovernmental immunity doctrine by regulating and discriminating against the federal government.

Olguin ruled that the government’s allegations were “insufficient to establish that the Ordinance violates the intergovernmental immunity doctrine,” but granted the administration permission to file an amended complaint by July 3.

“The Ordinance does not directly regulate the federal government,” Olguin said in his ruling. “Rather, it ‘controls the actions of [the City’s] own agents and agencies.’”

The White House and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Although the administration could refile its complaint, L.A.. City Atty. Hydee ‌Feldstein Soto celebrated the dismissal as a legal victory.

“This order reinforces the well-established principle that local governments have the authority to decide how to use their personnel and resources,” Feldstein Soto said in a statement.

The lawsuit, filed by the Trump administration in California’s Central District federal court last June, said the country is “facing a crisis of illegal immigration” and that its efforts to address it “are hindered by Sanctuary Cities such as the City of Los Angeles, which refuse to cooperate or share information, even when requested, with federal immigration authorities.”

The lawsuit came as immigration agents descended on Southern California, arresting thousands of immigrants and prompting protests across the region.

“The situation became so dire that the Federal Government deployed the California National Guard and United States Marines to quell the chaos,” the lawsuit states. “A direct confrontation with federal immigration authorities was the inevitable outcome of the Sanctuary City law.”

The law was proposed in early 2023, long before Trump’s election, but it was finalized in the wake of his victory in November 2024.

Under the ordinance, city employees and city property may not be used to “investigate, cite, arrest, hold, transfer or detain any person” for the purpose of immigration enforcement. An exception is made for law enforcement investigating serious offenses.

The ordinance bars city employees from seeking out information about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status unless it is needed to provide a city service. They also must treat data or information that can be used to trace a person’s citizenship or immigration status as confidential.

“The goal of this ordinance, and of LAPD’s immigration-related policies … is to encourage victims of and witnesses to crime to feel safe coming forward to seek help from LAPD regardless of their immigration status,” Feldstein Soto said in her statement. “It does not obstruct or impede lawful federal immigration enforcement operations.”

The government in its original filing said that Trump campaigned and won the 2024 presidential election on a platform of deporting “millions of illegal immigrants.” By enacting a sanctuary city ordinance, the City Council sought to “thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations,” the lawsuit states.

“The Supremacy Clause prohibits the City of Los Angeles and its officials from singling out the Federal Government for adverse treatment — as the challenged law and policies do — thereby discriminating against the Federal Government,” the lawsuit says.

Trump’s Department of Justice contends that L.A.’s sanctuary city ordinance goes much further than similar laws in other jurisdictions by “seeking to undermine the Federal Government’s immigration enforcement efforts.”

A United States judge has denied a petition from former Democratic President Joe Biden arguing his right to privacy would be violated should recordings he made for a memoir be made public.

On Friday, US District Judge Dabney Friedrich, an appointee of President Donald Trump, ruled that the recordings could be released to the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank.

The Trump administration had already authorised the release of the recordings and transcripts, which Biden made while out of public office with his ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer.

Together, they released the 2017 memoir, Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose.

In her 26-page ruling, Friedrich acknowledged that Biden was likely to suffer some reputational damage as a result of the recordings being released.

Biden has long been scrutinised about whether his advanced age impeded his ability to serve as president during his term from 2021 to 2025. Previously, he served as vice president from 2009 to 2017.

“The Court agrees that — on these facts involving the frank words of a public figure in his home — disclosure of the Zwonitzer materials risks irreparable harm to Biden’s privacy interests and his reputation,” Friedrich wrote.

But she concluded that such harms may not be irreparable, and they do not supersede the public interest in releasing the files.

“Biden has not identified any public harm that would arise absent an injunction in this case,” Friedrich said. “The harm to Biden’s diminished privacy interest is outweighed by the public’s interest in the Zwonitzer materials.”

Biden filed a lawsuit arguing that the Department of Justice had a duty to protect the private information it collects during criminal investigations.

He petitioned the court for an injunction to prevent the Heritage Foundation, which has supported Trump, from receiving the documents through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

“Every American, including a sitting or former Vice President, has a right to privacy in the personal conversations he has within his own home,” Biden’s lawyers have said in his court filings.

The recordings and transcripts came to be in the Justice Department’s possession in 2023, during Biden’s own term.

The Justice Department at the time had appointed a special counsel, lawyer Robert Hur, to independently investigate Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents while out of office.

A similar investigation, helmed by a second special counsel, Jack Smith, resulted in a short-lived criminal indictment against Trump. Hur, however, concluded that no criminal charges were “warranted” against Biden.

Part of his rationale was “a shortage of evidence”. But another part of his reasoning was that, if any charges were brought to trial, jurors were likely to perceive Biden “as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”.

As part of his investigation, Hur had obtained Biden’s recordings and transcripts with Zwonitzer in order to evaluate whether the Democrat had misused information from his time as president for his memoir.

But he also cited them as evidence to conclude that Biden “appeared to have significant limitations” in his memory.

The scrutiny over Biden’s age increased substantially during his 2024 bid for re-election. At a June 2024 presidential debate against Trump, Biden appeared to drift off topic and make nonsensical statements.

At one point, he issued the non sequitur, “We finally beat Medicare,” referencing a government health insurance programme for the elderly and those with disabilities.

Biden subsequently dropped out of the race, and his replacement, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, lost to Trump after a curtailed campaign. The Democrat, however, has consistently denied that he was unable to perform his duties as president.

Trump, meanwhile, has cited Biden’s age and mental acuity as a reason to undo the Democrat’s actions while in office.

He has also called on the Justice Department to investigate whether any officials attempted to conceal any health conditions Biden may have had while president.

The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee has also sought to obtain the Zwonitzer files for a similar investigation.

Biden was 82 years old by the time he left office in January 2025, making him the oldest sitting president in US history. Trump will be slightly older by the end of his tenure, should he complete his second term.

The Democrat is expected to appeal Friday’s decision to release the recordings.

US Department of Justice claims NAACP lawsuit threatens ‘national, economic, and energy security’.

The United States government has intervened on the side of Elon Musk’s xAI in a legal dispute over a $20bn data centre, claiming that efforts to block a related power project threaten national security.

In a court motion filed this week, the Department of Justice requested the dismissal of a lawsuit accusing xAI of illegally operating dozens of natural gas turbines erected to power the Colossus 2 data center in Memphis, Tennessee.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the largest civil rights group for African Americans, filed the lawsuit in April under the 1963 Clean Air Act, which allows citizens to seek injunctions and civil penalties against alleged polluters.

The NAACP alleges that xAI built the turbines, located in nearby Southaven, Mississippi, without obtaining the necessary permits, exposing hundreds of thousands of residents to harmful pollutants linked to “increases in asthma, respiratory diseases, heart problems, and certain cancers”.

The lawsuit notes that a “much larger share” of residents are Black compared with the US general population.

In its motion, filed in a US District Court on Monday, the Justice Department accused the NAACP of threatening “national, economic, and energy security by seeking to shut off the power supply for artificial intelligence innovation that supports the Department of War’s military operations”.

The motion also claims that the US Constitution vests the power to seek civil penalties “conclusively and preclusively” in the executive branch, including the “discretion to decide when such an enforcement action is unwarranted or inconsistent with federal enforcement priorities”.

Adam Gustafson, the top prosecutor at the Justice Department’s environment and natural resources division, said in a statement that the government would “not sit idly by while private organisations use environmental laws to undermine our national security”.

xAI, which is a subsidiary of Musk’s SpaceX, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Earthjustice, an advocacy group representing the NAACP in the lawsuit, condemned the intervention as a “massive power grab” by President Donald Trump’s administration.

“Trump’s Justice Department wants to shield Elon Musk’s data center company, xAI, from being held accountable for its illegal pollution – and it’s attempting to grab power from impacted communities, the courts, and Congress to do so,” Laura Thoms, director of enforcement for Earthjustice, said in a statement.

“There is no moral or legal precedent for this.”

Ann Carlson, a professor of environmental law at  UCLA School of Law, described the Trump administration’s argument as a “brazen attempt” to limit enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

“It’s based on a radical notion that the executive branch can dismiss lawsuits brought by citizen groups that Congress has authorised based on no rationale at all,” Carlson told Al Jazeera, adding that the Justice Department’s position would let “polluters off the hook even for blatant violations of the law.”

“This motion is also just one of many ways in which the administration is undermining efforts to protect air quality,” Carlson said.

The Trump administration has cultivated close ties with Musk, the world’s richest man, tapping the tech titan as a temporary cost-cutting tsar and using xAI’s flagship model Grok in the Pentagon’s drive to become an “AI-enabled fighting force”.

In testimony in support of Monday’s motion, Cameron Stanley, the Pentagon’s top official for AI, said that Grok had been used to launch more than 2,000 munitions at 2,000 targets within the first 96 hours of the US-Israel war on Iran.

If Grok cannot be deployed and upgraded due to “limitations in energy supply or limited reserve compute capability”, numerous tools used by the Pentagon would be “severely impacted”, Stanley said in a declaration made under oath.

The lawsuit originally filed in September focused on broader alleged misappropriation of confidential information.

A United States federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI that accused rival Sam Altman’s OpenAI of stealing trade secrets for chatbots.

US District Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco said on Monday that xAI failed to show that OpenAI induced former xAI senior engineer Xuechen Li to divulge confidential information related to its Grok chatbot, or that OpenAI engineers knew Li might have disclosed any.

Lin dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, saying it would be “futile” to continue. She dismissed an earlier version in February. The lawsuit originally filed last September focused on broader alleged misappropriation of confidential information, including source code, by xAI employees who left for jobs at OpenAI.

Monday’s decision is Musk’s second legal loss against OpenAI in four weeks.

On May 18, a federal jury ruled against Musk, the world’s richest person, in his $150bn lawsuit accusing OpenAI and Altman of “stealing a charity” by betraying the company’s original mission as a nonprofit to enrich themselves.

The xAI business is part of Musk’s rocket, satellite and AI company SpaceX.

Lawyers for xAI did not immediately respond to requests for comment. OpenAI and its lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests.

Discussing past work

The amended complaint focused on a presentation that Li gave while OpenAI was recruiting him.

Musk’s company said OpenAI wanted secrets related to the July 2025 release of Grok 4, knowing its forthcoming update to ChatGPT “could not compete” on complex reasoning, and because OpenAI was “lagging” in reinforcement learning and post-training techniques that Li understood.

But the judge said asking job candidates to discuss their prior work was routine, and one could not infer that OpenAI pushed Li to leak anything confidential.

“To hold otherwise would potentially expose employers to liability any time they inquire about a candidate’s past work,” Lin wrote.

OpenAI has said Li never worked for the company and that it never acquired xAI secrets.

In seeking dismissal, lawyers for OpenAI wrote: “OpenAI does not need or want anyone’s trade secrets, especially not from xAI, which is failing in the marketplace and hemorrhaging talent.”

Li is being sued separately by xAI and has denied wrongdoing.

June 15 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court will not take up former Trump adviser Carter Page’s lawsuit against former FBI director James Comey, it decided Monday.

Page sought to revive his lawsuit against Comey over errors and omissions made on warrant applications used to get permission to surveil him. The FBI wiretapped Page while it was investigating allegations against President Donald Trump‘s 2016 campaign colluding with Russia to interfere with the election.

Page’s lawsuit was dismissed by lower courts as they ruled he did not file his claims on time. Page alleges that the investigation into him harmed his reputation and cost him business opportunities.

The Trump administration paid Page $1.25 million in April to settle claims he made against the federal government.

The Justice Department said when announcing the agreement to settle with Page that the investigation into him was based on flawed information.

“No American should ever face covert and unlawful surveillance based on their political view,” a spokesperson for the Justice Department said in a statement.

Page has continued his attempts to sue Comey and seven others who served with the FBI during the investigation as individuals.

The Supreme Court released a list of cases it will and will not accept to its docket on Monday. The justices did not say why Page’s case has been denied.

Published on
15/06/2026 – 12:06 GMT+2

OpenAI is facing a fresh regulatory challenge after a group of state attorneys general demanded a wide range of documents about how ChatGPT protects the people who use it, a move that arrives at a delicate moment for the company as it lays the groundwork for a potential public listing.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The investigation, which arrived just days after OpenAI filed confidential paperwork for an IPO, threatens to complicate a listing that some analysts expect will value the ChatGPT maker at roughly $1 trillion (€861bn).

According to The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the matter, OpenAI received the subpoena on Friday from a group of states, with the inquiry led by New York’s attorney general.

Officials are requesting material covering the company’s advertising practices, how it keeps people using its service, its handling of consumer and health data, and its policies towards minors and older adults.

OpenAI said it would engage with the offices behind the request and stressed that protections are already built into its product.

A spokesperson stated that the company takes the concerns raised by the attorneys general “seriously” and works to bring the benefits of the technology to people responsibly. However, the firm has not confirmed which other US states are taking part.

Mounting legal pressure

The subpoena adds to a growing list of legal headaches.

Last Thursday, a Canadian woman sued OpenAI, blaming ChatGPT for her daughter’s suicide. Earlier in June, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed suit against the company and CEO Sam Altman after two shootings in which the alleged attackers reportedly used the chatbot to plan their crimes.

OpenAI responded that its models repeatedly urged the individuals to seek help from mental health professionals and that it cooperated with the police in both cases.

These are not the first courtroom tests of the year for OpenAI.

In May, a federal jury in Oakland, California took less than two hours to reject Elon Musk’s lawsuit accusing Altman of abandoning the firm’s nonprofit roots, finding he had filed too late. Musk, who called the ruling a “calendar technicality”, said he would appeal.

The clampdown also extends across the industry.

European regulators have opened investigations into Musk’s rival chatbot Grok over antisemitic and sexualised content, including deepfake images.

Anthropic, also preparing an IPO, was told by the Trump administration to restrict two of its models abroad on national security grounds, illustrating how AI governance has become an increasingly fraught political battleground.

Additional sources • AP

The Washington National Opera filed a lawsuit on Thursday that demands more than $17 million from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The opera company claims it is owed millions in donations that have been withheld.

The lawsuit claims that after the opera company and the Kennedy Center parted ways in January, center officials have not returned more than $17 million in gifts and donations that belong to the opera company. The lawsuit lists the federal government as a defendant because the Kennedy Center was established by Congress.

According to the suit, the opera company and the Kennedy Center had a longstanding contract in which WNO produced its operas at the Kennedy Center, which in return, provided a number of services and other support for the opera company including managing its donations.

In late 2025, after approximately 15 years of affiliation, the suit claims that the Kennedy Center stopped performing the obligations of their agreement, which included marketing, fundraising and administrative support, as well as timely reporting on the growth of the opera company’s funds. When the opera company requested the Kennedy Center remedy the issue, center officials asked to sever ties.

“Five months have now passed since the termination of the affiliation, and the Kennedy Center still has not returned the funds to WNO,” reads the suit. “To the contrary, according to the Kennedy Center’s Chief Financial Officer, the Kennedy Center has put a significant portion of WNO’s money at risk by using it to collateralize the Kennedy Center’s line of credit.”

In an emailed statement responding to the lawsuit, Roma Daravi, a spokeswoman for the Kennedy Center, told The Times that the contract between the opera house and the center financially burdened the center for more than a decade. The statement claimed that taking into account the company’s endowment, an external accounting firm calculated that the opera company had “accumulated a $72 million deficit to the center” between 2011 and 2026.

“The Center has acted transparently and in the best interests of the public throughout this process,” the statement reads. “This lawsuit is meritless, and we plan to pursue a countersuit to defend the institution.”

The legal action comes during a tumultuous time for the Kennedy Center. Last year, President Trump fired the board and appointed himself chairman of the Kennedy Center.

In December, President Trump’s name was installed on the exterior of the center the day after his handpicked board of trustees voted to change the institution’s name to the “Trump-Kennedy Center.” Last month, a federal judge ordered President Trump’s name to be removed from the exterior of the building within two weeks and a halt to the Trump administration’s planned two-year closure of the venue.

On Friday, the court-ordered deadline for removing his name sparked widespread interest and crowds gathered outside the center. A live cam was also placed near the structure.

The Times arts editor Jessica Gelt contributed to this report.

Embattled reality TV personalities Todd and Julie Chrisley are suing an Atlanta law firm and one of its attorneys, alleging that legal mistakes led to the couple’s conviction.

The lawsuit, filed June 5 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleges that Atlanta-based Balch & Bingham LLP and attorney Chris Anulewicz “put their own interests ahead of their clients’ lives” by taking on the couple’s case and appointing Anulewicz as the lead, which they say meant “money, publicity, and the kind of high-profile notoriety that brings in business.”

According to the Chrisleys, Anulewicz “had no meaningful criminal defense experience,” and “Balch knew this — or should have.” They also claim that while representing them, Anulewicz steered them into a $75,000 investment in his brother-in-law’s food truck business.

The lawsuit claims that the couple’s conviction and subsequent federal prison sentence were the result of an “unlawful, warrantless search of the Chrisleys’ warehouse” by the Georgia Department of Revenue, and that Anulewicz missed a deadline to suppress derivative evidence that was ultimately used as the foundation of the prosecution’s case.

“That illegal search launched the entire federal case,” reads the lawsuit. “The district court agreed the search was illegal and suppressed the physical documents. But Anulewicz — operating without supervision from Balch — never moved to suppress the derivative evidence: the emails, bank records, and financial documents that federal agents obtained because of what they learned from the illegal search.”

The couple is seeking $25 million in damages, claiming that because their team didn’t have the documents suppressed, they were convicted on every count.

“They served time in federal prison,” reads the suit. “They were separated from each other and from their children. They lost their television show and endorsement deals, costing them more than $25 million in income. Their reputations were destroyed. They have spent millions more in appeals and post-conviction proceedings, all of it an attempt to undo harm that a single timely motion would have prevented.”

In 2022, an Atlanta court found the “Chrisley Knows Best” couple guilty on charges of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States and tax fraud. Julie Chrisley was also charged with wire fraud and obstruction of justice.

Todd Chrisley received a 12-year sentence, along with 16 months’ probation, while his wife was sentenced to seven years in prison and 16 months’ probation.

In 2024, the Chrisleys’ daughter, Savannah, appealed to President Trump to free her mom and dad. During the Republican National Convention, she gave a speech about the “rogue prosecutors” who locked up her parents.

Last year, Trump granted the reality stars a full pardon.

Jay V. Surgent, an attorney who represents Todd and Julie Chrisley, said in a statement to The Times that the reality stars “have correctly been pardoned by President Trump.” He alleged that Georgia officials violated the “Chrisley Knows Best” stars’ constitutional rights due to their notoriety and criticized local authorities’ “improper seizure of evidence.”

Times staff writer Alexandra Del Rosario contributed to this report.

President Trump is known for being combative. And to mark his birthday Sunday, he’s literally picking a fight — actually seven of them. But a legion of opponents are determined to squash the celebration.

Trump has been gearing up for weeks for UFC Freedom 250, a mixed martial arts extravaganza that will turn the historic White House into a one-night fight house. The event designed to simultaneously celebrate his 80th birthday and commemorate America’s 250th anniversary will take place in a massive octagon-shaped structure that has been erected on the South Lawn of the White House.

The invitation-only event is scheduled to stream live on Paramount+, which is owned by David Ellison, one of Trump’s closest allies. UFC fights began streaming on the service earlier this year, with some airing on CBS, one of the first major deals signed under Ellison.

White House spokesman Davis Ingle has called the UFC card “one of the greatest and most historic sports events in history, and President Trump hosting it at the White House is a testament to his vision to celebrate America’s monumental 250th anniversary.”

But the gala is facing fierce legal challenges from activists who say UFC Freedom 250 is a scam flavored by financial and political corruption, accusing Trump and his close friends UFC chief Dana White and Ellison of benefiting financially from the event. Opponents say Trump has purchased stock in UFC’s parent company, TKO Group Holdings, while pointing out that UFC Freedom 250 is happening several weeks before the Fourth of July anniversary.

White House officials have called those allegations baseless and have asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit.

As promo spots showing the combatants in fight mode fill the airwaves, the Public Integrity Project watchdog group has filed a lawsuit trying to derail the event. While the National Park Service is named as one of the defendants in the suit, environmental groups and former park service staff have decried the event.

Dana White, left, and then-President-elect Trump attend a UFC event held at Madison Square Garden in New York City in 2024.

(Sarah Stier / Getty Images)

Though some legal experts have predicted that those efforts may fall short, UFC Freedom 250 marks the latest in a relentless stream of furors shadowing Trump as he faces sharply declining poll numbers and harsh criticism over his economic and domestic policies, as well as his handling of the war with Iran. Here’s what we know about the event and what to expect Sunday.

What is UFC Freedom 250?

The event will take place in a mammoth claw-like outdoor arena that will spotlight the White House in the background. Undisputed lightweight champion Ilia Topuria will face off against current interim lightweight champion Justin Gaethje in the main event, which is billed as a five-round title unification battle.

A six-fight undercard, including a heavyweight interim title bout between Alex Pereira and Ciryl Gane, will precede the main event.

Who is putting on the fight?

White‘s UFC is staging the event. White, who has stressed in interviews that no taxpayer dollars are involved, has said that Trump made the suggestion of a White House event when they were together at a recent UFC fight.

Wouldn’t baseball or basketball be a more appropriate sport to feature in a celebration of America instead of a cage fight?

Perhaps. But Trump is a huge fan of boxing and mixed martial arts. He was flanked by several of the fighters who will be participating in the event when he first announced the bouts at the Oval Office. He gushed as he introduced them individually, calling them warriors: “No people in sports are tougher than these people.”

But Conor Friedersdorf, a staff writer for the Atlantic, put forth a different theory: “On Trump’s 80th birthday, blood sport will be the diversion of choice at the White House because he wants to associate his presidency and himself with the violent domination and humiliation of rivals,” he wrote in a newsletter. “America itself is weaker now on the world stage than it was when Trump began either of his presidencies.”

White has credited the president’s devotion to the sport with propelling it into the cultural mainstream, and he is predicting a record-breaking global audience.

Where can viewers watch the event?

UFC Freedom 250 will stream on Paramount+ as part of a $7.7-billion deal that Ellison struck with TKO Group Holdings, the owner of UFC. The broadcast starts at 5 p.m. Pacific.

Dana White, left, and President Trump attend UFC 327 in Miami in April.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

The event is another apparent maneuver for Ellison to curry favor with Trump as he seeks his support and approval for a $111-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery. Trump has made no secret for his desire for shake up Warner Bros. Discovery-owned CNN, which he regards as a hostile platform.

Will this be a star-studded event?

Don’t expect a New York Knicks-style celebrity row. Although several stars including Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Adam Sandler, Mario Lopez and former star quarterback Tom Brady have reportedly been invited by White, none have indicated that they plan to show up.

White has said that 70,000 fans have registered for free tickets to attend the fan event at the Ellipse near the White House.

Since it’s Trump’s birthday, is UFC Freedom 250 a political event?

“This isn’t politics,” White said recently on ESPN’s “The Pat McAfee Show. “This is about the United States, what this country is about … If you love America, you’re going to love this event. It has nothing to do with politics. We just happen to be on the White House lawn and the president of the United States will be there.”

Why is there opposition to the fights?

The lawsuit filed by the Public Integrity Project contends that UFC Freedom 250 violates federal regulations that prohibit sporting events on federal park lands. Two Virginia activists who are plaintiffs in the suit claim that they “want to uphold the rule of law and protect our nation’s most cherished monuments from corrupt exploitation.”

The suit contends that the plan includes a weigh-in at the Lincoln Memorial and a pre-fight walkout from the Oval Office.

According to the suit, “The president is giving White and his company what none have enjoyed before: unfettered access to the White House and Lincoln Memorial to state a private, for-profit sports event with all of the promotional and branding opportunities that accompany such access.”

Brendan Ballou, chief executive of the Public Integrity Project, said in an interview on MS NOW that the event and advertising is “fundamentally the private profiteering of our national monuments, and that is fundamentally what is violating the law and why we are suing.”

The first serious legal challenge to the House settlement will come courtesy of a USC freshman linebacker.

Talanoa Ili, a top-100 recruit in the Trojans’ vaunted 2026 class, joins Stanford quarterback Charlie Mirer as one of two lead plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit that takes aim at the system implemented since the settlement ushered in a new era of direct payment from universities to athletes. The suit, which was filed Tuesday, accuses the NCAA, the Power Four conferences and the enforcement arm they created — the College Sports Commission — of participating in a “conspiracy” by creating a system of policies that have “direct anti-competitive effects, including the suppression of [name, image and likeness] compensation below competitive levels.”

Those policies, their attorneys argue, violate state laws in California that prohibit restrictions on NIL rights, as well as federal antitrust statutes. They’re seeking monetary damages, as well as an injunction that would upend the enforcement structure created to determine whether individual NIL deals over $2,500 meet criteria, including whether they have “a valid business purpose” or fall within a reasonable range of market value.

The clearinghouse, NIL Go, was created with the hope of eliminating an influx of booster-funded NIL deals that were basically direct payments from donors to the program. But since its inception, the system has been more restrictive and worked less efficiently than some schools and athletes might have hoped. As of last month, according to Yahoo Sports, more than $125 million worth of NIL compensation that had been promised to athletes had been rejected by the clearinghouse or was still under review.

In Ili’s case, the complaint states that he received a “substantial multi-year offer” from USC’s House of Victory collective in 2024 that led him to commit to the Trojans, only to have the offer disappear after approval of the House settlement.

“Absent the NIL Restrictions on Direct Pay NIL Compensation, Ili would have received more for his NIL rights than he now receives,” the complaint states. “The Agreement has thus injured Ili.”

Mirer, meanwhile, claims that he has received no NIL compensation from Stanford’s collective or revenue-sharing money from the university since 2024 as a result of the settlement.

Stanford quarterback Charlie Mirer during a game last season.

(Godofredo A. Vásquez / Associated Press)

“The [CSC agreement] has suppressed, deterred, and effectively terminated the economic relationships that had produced his prior NIL compensation,” the lawsuit says.

Even the plaintiffs in the House settlement, which created the CSC, are in the process of challenging the current system. On Wednesday, plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Kessler will argue in a hearing that school-affiliated businesses such as multimedia rights holders or corporate sponsors, should not be subject to the CSC’s rigorous criteria for NIL deals. That decision could also open the floodgates, with schools using those entities to circumvent the cap.

Two U.S. senators are hoping to pass legislation they believe would bring more stability to college athletics and thwart legal challenges. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Texas) spoke with presidents and chancellors from the Big Ten Conference on Tuesday about a bipartisan bill, the Protect College Sports Act, which would codify some of the CSC’s policies into federal law.

A UFC fight card scheduled for Sunday on the White House South Lawn is facing legal challenges in federal court.

The watchdog group Public Integrity Project filed a lawsuit last weekend on behalf of two Virginia residents aiming to shut down the Mixed Martial Arts event, which has been billed as part of a celebration of the nation’s 250th anniversary. The event is scheduled to take place on President Trump‘s 80th birthday.

The lawsuit refers to the plan for UFC Freedom 250 as “illegal,” stating that proper authorization was not obtained to hold the event and to build structures on federal parklands, and “corrupt,” in that the president and others allegedly stand to benefit financially from the “private, for-profit sports event.”

“This is a profoundly corrupt scheme to enrich the President and his friends,” Public Integrity Project founder Brendan Ballou said in a statement on the group’s website. “If this fight is allowed to proceed, it will be only the beginning, and our national monuments will become little more than branding opportunities for the rich and well-connected. We plan to stop that.”

The group also filed for a temporary restraining order to stop the construction and prevent further planning for the event.

The National Park Service and Department of the Interior, as well as executives from each department, are named as defendants.

“This is an obstructionist, baseless, and dilatory lawsuit brought simply to prevent President Trump from hosting what will undoubtedly go down as one of the most historic sporting events in our Nation’s history during our semiquincentennial celebration,” a Trump administration official said in a statement emailed to The Times.

“This iconic event is no different than the various other White House-hosted events on the South Lawn and properly permitted events on the Ellipse and National Mall throughout the year.”

According to the lawsuit, UFC Freedom 250 violates NPS policy that prohibits sporting events on the South Lawn. In addition, it states that the plans for the event did not receive approval from Congress to construct a massive structure on the lawn and did not undergo a required environmental review before construction.

Construction started late last month on a massive octagon with an open overhead dome and around 5,000 arena seats.

Last year, the NPS established a temporary rule that allows “special events planned, organized, and executed by executive departments and agencies or the Semiquincentennial Commission for the celebration of the 250th anniversary of American Independence” on Washington’s monumental grounds.

The lawsuit states, however, that the rule does not apply to Sunday’s MMA event.

“UFC Freedom 250 is a private, for-profit sporting event being ‘planned, organized, and executed’ by the UFC, its broadcast partners, and its advertisers, not by the federal government,” the filing states.

“And it is not in any material sense a ‘celebration of the 250th anniversary of American Independence’ — it is, instead, a celebration of the UFC’s brand and the 80th anniversary of Donald Trump’s birth.”

UFC and parent company TKO are said to be footing the bill for the reported $60 million event. Still, it’s a massive platform for UFC, which longtime Trump friend and supporter Dana White runs. The president reportedly bought between $15,000 and $50,000 of TKO stock earlier this year.

No tickets are being sold to the general public. Most of the 5,000 seats next to the White House will be given to military members, while thousands of others will be able to watch on big screens in nearby parks. The event also will stream live exclusively on Paramount+, which is controlled by Trump allies Larry and David Ellison.

“This will be one of the greatest and most historic sports events in history, and President Trump hosting it at the White House is a testament to his vision to celebrate America’s monumental 250th anniversary,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement. “Anyone who finds a problem with that clearly suffers from a severe and incurable disease known as Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

Musicians have been left out of settlements between major record labels and AI companies, a new lawsuit alleges.

The American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM), which has 70,000 members, said Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group “received significant compensation” from the AI companies for past copyright violations and licensed “substantial” portions of their music catalogs to them, but haven’t shared that with the musicians.

UMG and WMG sued AI companies Udio and Suno in 2024, accusing them of copyright infringement. Both companies settled with Udio last year. In November, WMG announced a partnership with Suno, but Universal Music Group’s lawsuit against Suno is pending.

“While the Defendants protected their own interests and created a significant source of new revenue with the retrospective settlements and prospective licenses, they have refused to compensate the musicians whose work — created with their own instruments and through their talent, creativity, and hard work — is fed into AI machines for profit,” AFM said in its lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York on Friday.

AFM said it believes the AI settlements fall under the “new use” provision of its collective bargaining agreements, which requires music companies to notify the union of new licenses for purposes not covered by the contract and to compensate musicians, whose work was used to train AI models.

UMG and WMG said in statements that they are in negotiations on a collective bargaining agreement with AFM.

“Warner Music Group is growing the value of music by establishing guardrails and architecting a healthy AI ecosystem on behalf of artists everywhere,” the company said in a statement.

Universal Music Group said it will continue to work to resolve issues during the negotiations.

“Universal Music Group has been at the forefront of protecting the rights and advancing the interests of artists and songwriters in the age of AI — striking responsible AI licensing agreements to ensure they are compensated, leading the charge for legislation to further protect them and taking legal action against bad actors,” the company said in a statement.
“We expect to continue our strong working relationship with the AFM built on mutual respect for the talented musicians in our industry.”

AI has become more popular among consumers, dramatically changing the landscape in the entertainment industry. Many startups have popped up allowing users to type text prompts into AI systems to generate original songs, video clips and stories.

Some creatives say the AI tools help them brainstorm or illustrate bold ideas on a budget. But critics have raised concerns about whether AI systems are trained on copyrighted works without permission or payment to artists. Others are worried AI could eliminate their livelihoods.

Udio said it would create a new platform that would train on licensed and authorized music with artists having the ability to opt-in. Suno agreed to change its platform, launching new licensed models, and place download restrictions.

Bradford Auerbach, a partner at law firm OGC, said he expects to see more of these types of lawsuits filed by unions.

“You’ve got the unions always protecting the status quo, so you’ve got this invariable conflict of new technology coming in, and moving the cheese for a lot of people that were accustomed to having their business set up the way it was,” Auerbach said.

The UFC White House event scheduled for Sunday, 14 June has been challenged by a federal lawsuit which alleges it is unlawful.

UFC Freedom 250 is set to take place on the White House’s South Lawn on US President Donald Trump’s 80th birthday, as part of celebrations to mark 250 years of United States independence.

However, the Public Integrity Project has filed a lawsuit – seeking an emergency temporary retraining order – against the event billed as the first professional sporting event to be held on the White House grounds.

“We think that this is a profound misuse of our sacred national monuments for private gain. And we think that needs to be stopped because it breaks the law,” said Brendan Ballou, lead attorney for the Public Integrity Project.

The Public Integrity Project is a self-described anti-corruption law firm based in Washington. It is led by Democrats including former Senator Russ Feingold and politician Zephyr Teachout, and has brought several suits against Trump, including one to undo the sale of the social media app TikTok and another to stop a billion-dollar “anti-weaponisation” fund.

The group argues that Trump and the UFC believe they do not have to apply for a permit to use the National Mall, ask Congress to approve construction of “The Claw” at the White House, or conduct an environmental review, because the fight is part of special semiquincentennial celebrations.

But it says that the event does “not in any material sense” celebrate the anniversary of the country’s founding and is not being carried out by the federal government or the official commission steering the anniversary’s observance.

The Trump administration issued a response to the BBC: “This is an obstructionist, baseless and dilatory lawsuit brought simply to prevent President Trump from hosting what will undoubtedly go down as one of the most historic sporting events in our nation’s history during our semiquincentennial celebration.”

Legal challenge claims US president did not seek proper approval for fighting event to be held on his 80th birthday.

A lawsuit is seeking to stop United States President Donald Trump from hosting an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) match at the White House.

The lawsuit, lodged on behalf of two Virginia residents, is the first known legal challenge to the mixed martial arts event, which is set to be hosted on June 14.

The event will take place on Trump’s 80th birthday. It is also pegged to the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which the US will commemorate on July 4 of this year.

The legal challenge filed on Saturday maintained that Trump did not receive proper authorisation to host the fight.

It argued that the event violated US National Park Service regulations prohibiting sporting events on federal parklands, that Congress did not consent to the construction of a towering arch overlooking the event space, and that no environmental review was conducted before the construction.

“This is fundamentally a private, commercial, corrupt use of our most sacred national monuments for private gain,” said Brendan Ballou, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “And that is what is motivating this lawsuit.”

In a statement to the Associated Press, the White House dismissed the lawsuit as “obstructionist, baseless, and dilatory”.

The White House maintained the UFC fight was “no different than the various other White House-hosted events on the South Lawn and properly permitted events on the Ellipse and National Mall throughout the year”.

Crews have been erecting an octagon-shaped fighting cage on the South Lawn of the White House, with Trump saying the project will include a “5,000-seat arena right outside the front door of the White House”.

Attendance at the fight will be invite-only and closely monitored. The Military Times news site reported earlier this week that 1,200 service members given tickets to the event must meet certain waist-to-height ratio standards.

Public viewing areas will also be set up at the nearby Ellipse.

Trump has long been closely involved with both professional wrestling and UFC, with his casinos and event spaces hosting past events.

He regularly appeared as a version of himself in World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) events throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. His current secretary of education, Linda McMahon, is a co-founder of the WWE.

Trump has more recently embraced UFC, which is currently owned by the same company, TKO Group Holdings, as the WWE.

UFC president Dana White has been a close ally of Trump’s.

Political analysts have credited Trump’s embrace of the sport with reaching disaffected male voters in the US, particularly during his 2024 election campaign.

A federal judge sided with California and other Democratic states on Friday in a preliminary injunction that blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to condition food benefits on compliance with the president’s policies on gender and immigration.

Twenty states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in March against the Trump administration in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, arguing that the “unlawful” and “unconstitutional” funding requirements are vague and designed to force policies on states.

Billions in federal funding are ultimately at stake, including money for school lunch programs that provide meals to 30 million children nationwide and food stamps that support about 40 million Americans living in low-income households.

“As the Trump Administration tries to use essential programs and billions in funding as leverage to advance their hateful, discriminatory agenda, California continues to fight to uphold the law and ensure that our communities can continue to access the funding they need to thrive,” said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta in a statement.

The policy shift from the United States Department of Agriculture marks another effort by the president to force left-leaning states to submit to his positions on hot-button political and cultural issues to receive government funding. California’s current budget relies on $174.5 billion in federal dollars, or roughly one-third of the overall state budget funds.

Last year, the Trump administration canceled a sexual education grant to California after the state declined to remove gender identity from sexual education curriculum. The administration is also restricting federal funds in an attempt to force states to ban transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports.

The funding conditions from the USDA relate to gender ideology, women and girls’ sports and immigration, according to the lawsuit.

States argue that the conditions do not explain what activities are prohibited for entities that receive grants. The USDA did not cite any law allowing the organization to impose anti-discrimination policies that go beyond federal law, the suit states.

The states that joined the lawsuit contend that they are left with the “unlawful” choice of adhering to the conditions or risk losing up to $74 billion in collective federal assistance from the USDA.

U.S. District Judge Myong Joun approved a preliminary injunction Friday and is expected to issue a memorandum later explaining the decision, according to the Associated Press.