lawsuit

PHOENIX — Election officials in Arizona’s most populous county reached an agreement this week on how to jointly oversee the vote, ending a prolonged legal battle.

Republican Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap sued the predominantly GOP board of supervisors in June 2025, alleging it illegally took control of certain aspects of election administration. The board called the lawsuit frivolous and said Heap was wasting taxpayer money.

They reached a settlement this week to resolve the lawsuit after mediated negotiations, and the board approved it.

“This deal gets us out of the courtroom,” board Chair Kate Brophy McGee, said after Tuesday’s vote. “I’m sick of drama. We are done with being on the front page going forward.”

Heap said his objective was simple: to ensure his office’s statutory responsibilities are carried out lawfully.

“I am pleased we have reached an agreement that, when implemented, will restore those responsibilities and establish a clear framework for administering elections moving forward,” Heap said in a statement jointly released with the board.

Under the agreement, an interim plan proposed by Heap and approved by the Arizona Supreme Court will govern the July 21 primary. Early voting began in late June.

Heap will oversee much of early voting, selection of ballot drop box locations and other duties. The board will handle other areas, including Election Day voting, ballot tabulation and voting location equipment maintenance. The board also will fund a new $15 million information technology system and related positions for the recorder.

Heap was backed in the lawsuit by America First Legal, a conservative public interest group founded by Stephen Miller, a deputy chief of staff in the White House. Heap had claimed the board transferred funding, IT staff and some key functions — including management of drop boxes and establishment of early voting sites — away from his office through an agreement negotiated with his predecessor.

Heap defeated incumbent recorder Stephen Richer, in a GOP primary, and won the 2024 general election.

The two were at odds over election administration in Maricopa County. In the past, Heap has stopped short of repeating false claims that the 2020 and 2022 elections were stolen. But he has said voters don’t trust the state’s voting system and that it is poorly run. Richer, also a Republican, relentlessly defended the legitimacy of the vote.

Supervisor Steve Gallardo, a Democrat, did not vote to approve the settlement and criticized Heap during Tuesday’s board meeting.

“Honestly, I don’t think he wants to have an election that is conducted transparent or even an election that’s not compromised,” Gallardo said. “Now, with this, he owns it.”

Kelety writes for the Associated Press.

In the latest lawsuit against Paramount Skydance, a corporate shareholder has alleged corruption at the highest levels of the company, which is battling to complete its $111-billion takeover of rival Warner Bros. Discovery to create a new media behemoth.

Controlling shareholders Larry Ellison and his son David have presided over a firm that allegedly made “illegal promises and payments to secure regulatory approval,” for the Ellison family’s Paramount purchase last summer, according to the shareholder lawsuit filed this week in Delaware court.

Larry Ellison allegedly discussed with President Trump how Paramount’s pending Warner Bros. acquisition would result in a shake-up at CNN, states the lawsuit filed by Paramount shareholder Paul Robbins.

“The Ellisons [won] the bidding war for Warner Bros. by promising sweeping changes at CNN and other personal benefits to President Trump,” according to the 59-page complaint.

The case was brought on Robbins’ behalf by the nonprofit Public Integrity Project and the advocacy group Freedom of Press Foundation, which has been critical of the Trump’s administration policies toward the media.

The complaint noted that Netflix withdrew from the bidding in February — the same day Co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met at the White House with then-Atty. General Pam Bondi and another top official.

The lawsuit suggests Netflix dropped out after recognizing the challenges of dealing with the Trump Administration and that Trump always wanted to see the prize go to Paramount because of his close ties to the Ellison family, who have ushered in more favorable news coverage of Trump and the departure of late night comedian Stephen Colbert.

Robbins does not appear to have first-hand accounts supporting his claims, which are based on public documents and media reports about dealings between the Ellisons and Trump. He has owned Paramount stock since 2021, but the lawsuit does not say how many shares he owns.

He could not be reached for comment.

A Paramount spokesperson could not be immediately reached.

Previously, a Paramount spokesperson said: “No commitments from either David or Larry Ellison have been made to any government body, State AG or federal agency regarding the future of CNN or any other news property, other than the goal to deliver truth-based journalism.”

It’s the third lawsuit lobbed at Paramount this week. On Monday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta led a coalition of 12 Democrat state attorneys general filed a federal antitrust lawsuit seeking to block the Paramount-Warner merger due to concerns about consolidation in movie distribution and cable channels.

The Writers Guild of America added another an antitrust lawsuit against Paramount on Tuesday, alleging the massive merger would result in fewer jobs and lower pay for writers.

Many in Hollywood are opposed to the deal due to fears that another studio consolidation would bring more layoffs, programming cutbacks and a fragile business environment due to the heavy debt burden — nearly $80 billion — that Paramount would have to take on to buy Warner Bros.

The shareholder lawsuit noted that Paramount participated in a raucous event with UFC fighters on the White House lawn in June to celebrate Trump’s 80th birthday and the nation’s 250th anniversary. Paramount has UFC broadcast rights.

The event came two days after Trump’s Justice Department wrapped its regulatory review of Paramount’s Warner Bros. proposal, giving the merger a key green light.

Justice Department investigators reportedly did not have a chance to express potential antitrust concerns when high-level Justice Department officials closed the inquiry — a major win for Paramount and the Ellisons, the lawsuit states.

“There have been some line attorneys in the DOJ that have reviewed this [merger] and have some concerns,” New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James said Tuesday during a virtual town hall with opponents of the merger. “Their analysis of this particular case was ignored by the front office, if you will, at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. [the White House] That’s the front office.”

Ellison’s Skydance Media emerged with its deal to buy Paramount two years ago. Previous controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, was desperate for an exit and Trump was mounting his White House comeback by battling then-President Joe Biden, then Kamala Harris.

Trump declined an invitation to appear on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” then under Redstone control. He became infuriated by an October 2024 interview with Harris on “60 Minutes.”

Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS (he later upped it to $20 billion). After Trump won the election, he had considerable sway over Paramount because it needed his administration’s approval for the sale to the Ellisons.

Paramount agreed to pay Trump $16 million to end his “60 Minutes” lawsuit, allowing the sale to go forward. The Ellisons acquired Paramount in August, then set their sights on Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN.

“The Ellisons proceeded to remake CBS in the President’s image, bought properties he enjoyed, and even hosted events to honor him,” the lawsuit said. “This helped the Ellisons, but it appears to have hurt Paramount and its media outlets.”

In late April, David Ellison hosted an elaborate dinner in Washington to honor the “Trump White House,” according to invitations to the event, “even though President Trump continually insulted journalists at CBS and elsewhere,” the lawsuit said.

On Wednesday, during a confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill, U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) blasted acting Atty. General Todd Blanche for his attendance at the dinner while his agency was reviewing the Paramount deal.

Also on Wednesday, the nonprofit news site ProPublica reported Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has accepted $63,000 in free tickets from CBS in recent years — while Paramount mergers were pending.

Times Staff Writer Ben Wieder contributed to this report.

Two lawsuits already serve as backdrops to the unseemly sequence of events that led to Bryce Harper sending Thanksgiving wishes on behalf of FanDuel to an admitted sports gambling addict.

Could there be a third?

Legal experts say Harper might have grounds to sue FanDuel for false endorsement, misappropriation and invasion of privacy.

The Philadelphia Phillies All-Star first baseman said in a statement posted on Instagram that he created a personalized 21-second video on behalf of FanDuel but would not have done so had he known the online sportsbook allegedly intended to use it to entice VIP customer Terry Thompson to continue gambling.

“I did not know FanDuel would do this,” Harper wrote. “I did not consent to it, and FanDuel had no right to do it.”

Harper said he received a request on Cameo in November 2024 to read a message provided by FanDuel VIP host Bryttanni Morgan for a personal “holiday video for Terry.”

“Hey, Terry? What’s up, brother? Hey, man, your host Bryttanni from FanDuel wanted to make sure your Thanksgiving was extra special,” Harper says in the video.

Thompson sued FanDuel, Morgan, DraftKings and the NFL in March, alleging that the sportsbooks caused him to lose about $1.6 million while betting an estimated $18.5 million over a four-year period.

“Had I known FanDuel’s true intent, I would not have made the video,” Harper said. “The same is true had I known anything about Terry or his situation, or about any alleged ‘partnership’ between Cameo and FanDuel.”

The lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Public Health Advocacy Institute on behalf of Thompson and fellow gambler Christopher Sage alleges that FanDuel and DraftKings intentionally fostered addiction by providing enticements such as Super Bowl tickets, hotel accommodations and access to athletes and celebrities.

Thompson said his home fell into foreclosure after he took out second and third mortgages. He borrowed money from family and friends and burned through his savings, losing his last $10,000 on a DraftKings parlay bet in February.

He describes in the lawsuit feeling so desperate that he reached out to his therapist, who called police officers to his home to prevent him from harming himself.

Sportico legal analyst Michael McCann wrote that Harper likely has grounds to sue FanDuel over the video.

Harper, an eight-time All-Star and two-time Most Valuable Player, has earned nearly $252 million in salary over his 15-year MLB career and is owed another $75 million before his contract expires after the 2031 season. He also earns about $9 million a year in endorsements, according to Sportico.

In a legal action, Harper could seek monetary damages by alleging that the video tarnished his reputation. The perception that he urged a gambling addict to continue destructive behavior could negatively impact his ability to land endorsement deals.

“Section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act prohibits false endorsements, including when a business draws from an athlete’s NIL and other identifying characteristics without permission,” McCann wrote. “There can be a viable claim when that unauthorized use leads consumers to believe the athlete endorses the business’s product or service.

“Harper could also sue over unauthorized use of his name, image, voice and other uniquely identifying features. To that end, he could argue the video constitutes misappropriation or invasion of privacy.”

FanDuel, in turn, could counter by pointing out that Harper agreed to create the video as part of his relationship with Cameo, a company that connects fans with celebrities and creators for personalized digital interactions.

“False endorsement and misappropriation, FanDuel could insist, are inapplicable to a personalized video setting where the video’s talent voluntarily assents in exchange for compensation,” McCann wrote. “Further, FanDuel could assert that Harper was, or should have been, aware of a potential connection between the video and FanDuel and, more generally, sports betting.”

FanDuel issued a statement after the Harper video came to light in an investigative story published July 9 in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

“We are committed to fostering a culture of responsible gaming and protecting our customers,” the statement said. “Unlike illegal offshore sportsbooks, FanDuel employees are trained to recognize and flag signs of problem gambling and offer resources and tools, and we continue to review and strengthen our policies to ensure we have the industry’s strongest consumer protection initiatives.”

FanDuel and DraftKings, the leading sportsbooks since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that states could legalize sports betting, have developed lucrative partnerships with leagues in all major sports. The 2022 MLB collective bargaining agreement opened the door for players to do promotional work for sportsbooks.

Yet the collaborations have not come without problems. The MLB players union’s licensing and marketing arm filed a lawsuit in 2024 that accused DraftKings, FanDuel and Bet365 of using without permission or compensation photos of players on its betting app and in social media posts.

Coincidentally, Harper became embroiled in that lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs pointed to images of Harper’s face on the DraftKings app as evidence. The two sides reached a settlement in April ahead of trial.

The Writers Guild of America sued Paramount on Tuesday, alleging that the company’s planned $111-billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery violates federal antitrust law.
The union said that with fewer competitors, the merged Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery business would be able to lower costs by reducing writers’ wages and work.

“Writers will be paid less and have fewer employment opportunities,” the WGA said in its lawsuit.

The move comes a day after California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta led a coalition of 12 Democratic state attorneys general who filed a federal lawsuit to block Paramount Skydance’s $111-billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

Bonta has separately asked a judge in San Francisco for a temporary restraining order to hold up the deal while his case is pending in court.

“We feel we have a very strong case,” Bonta said Tuesday during a town hall meeting. “This proposed merger will raise prices. It will lower quality. It will reduce output. It will hurt the American people, and it’ll hurt the the economy and competition.”

The writers guild’s missive creates a second line of attack against tech scion David Ellison’s industry-reshaping deal.

Ellison’s proposed merger has been moving closer to the finish line after securing approvals from the U.S. Justice Department and numerous other foreign governments. President Trump, an ally of Ellison’s billionaire father Larry Ellison, favors the deal.

David Ellison wants to close the deal by September to avoid a higher payout to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders.

A Paramount spokeswoman said the company is reviewing the lawsuit.

The proposed merger has sparked fears in Hollywood that it would bring thousands of job losses — similar to past consolidations, including Walt Disney Co.’s 2019 takeover of Fox entertainment properties.

“The Writers Guild of America will not stand idly by as Paramount attempts to violate our country’s antitrust laws and deepen the contraction entertainment workers already feel,” said Writers Guild of America East President Tom Fontana in a statement. “This proposed combined entity would be the largest employer of writers, with tremendous power to suppress our wages, eliminate opportunities for emerging writers, cut jobs across the industry, and produce less programming, affecting the range of storytelling. This merger is not inevitable and we are fighting to stop it.”

The federal government agreed to temporarily hold off on construction of a planned Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Northern California.

The voluntary pause until Sept. 9 comes after the California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Santa Clara County officials sued the Trump administration last month to block the facility from being developed near Gilroy. The lawsuit remains ongoing.

“This pause in the construction, demolition, and development at the site of the challenged ICE facility is a significant step towards protecting our people, our communities, and our environment while the case remains ongoing,” Bonta said in a statement Monday night.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.

State and local officials believe the facility will be used for short-term detention of up to 150 people at a time, though ICE denied that it would be a detention center.

Community members and advocates for immigrants swiftly opposed the project. ICE has consistently looked to increase its detention capacity in California, where eight detention centers can now hold a combined 9,000 people, though the state has long been a thorn in the agency’s side.

The halt is part of a compromise between both sides involved in the legal action. After the state and county submitted a request for the court to temporarily halt the project, a hearing was set for Oct. 7.

Now, state and federal officials jointly requested that the court move up the hearing by at least a month. The agreement also extends how much time the federal government has to respond.

A federal judge signed off on the agreement Monday night.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in San José, alleges that the leased land is zoned exclusively for agricultural use and that the federal government violated laws requiring state and county notification, as well as procedural steps before beginning construction.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over his leaked tax returns was filed for an “improper purpose,” a judge said Monday in a scathing decision that referred one of his lawyers for discipline and characterized the $10-billion complaint as an exercise in self-dealing.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams accused Trump of having manipulated the court system when he sued a federal agency under his control, bypassing a requirement that parties in a lawsuit must have adverse interests and laying the groundwork for a settlement last spring that granted him immunity from tax audits and created a fund to compensate allies of the president who say they were unjustly persecuted.

Though the practical impacts of the ruling may be limited given the administration’s public pronouncements that the so-called $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund has been abandoned, the judge’s ruling nonetheless amounts to a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration and resurfaces a politically damaging storyline for acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche just as he prepares to face the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing Wednesday.

“The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law,” Williams wrote in her ruling.

She added: “The President may be the functional ‘dominus litus’ of the Executive Branch, but as a party to a civil suit, he, as well as all the parties and lawyers before a court, are bound by the rules. Ensuring that our courts are used only for the express purpose created by the Constitution is the obligation of every judge and an obligation that this Court must discharge in light of the matter before it. ”

The judge pointed to Blanche’s congressional testimony in early June in which he revealed that the “anti-weaponization” fund was no longer moving forward amid intense bipartisan backlash. Though nothing had been filed in court, Blanche appeared confident in his testimony that he “could speak for, and bind, both sides of this matter,” the judge wrote.

“Acting Attorney General Blanche’s apparent capacity to speak for both Plaintiffs and Defendants, sign a ‘settlement’ document on behalf of all Parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case,” the judge wrote.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Fatima Hussein and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

CONCORD, N.H. — Two transgender girls who were the first to challenge President Trump’s executive order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” have withdrawn their lawsuit in New Hampshire based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld state bans on transgender athletes in girls’ sports and their own personal hardships, their lawyer said.

“This case was always about two courageous young girls who simply wanted the same opportunities as their peers to participate in school life,” their lawyer, Chris Erchull of GLAD Law, said in a statement Thursday. “Their willingness to stand up to extraordinary hostility made clear the human cost of laws that target transgender youth.”

The teenagers, Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, took on Trump’s executive order last year, amending their 2024 complaint against New Hampshire’s law on banning transgender girls from school sports. A federal judge had granted a court order allowing them to play as the case proceeded.

For Tirrell, it meant being able to keep playing on her high school girls’ soccer team. For Turmelle, it was having a chance to try out for different sports.

Both sides agreed to pause the case and wait for a ruling from the Supreme Court as it considered similar state laws barring transgender girls and women from playing on school and college athletic teams in Idaho and West Virginia. Last month, the court upheld the laws. It also said that barring transgender girls and women doesn’t run afoul of the federal law known as Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education.

One teen and her family decided to move from New Hampshire

Turmelle and her family moved out of New Hampshire last summer following proposed legislation against transgender people. One measure signed into law by Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte last year prohibits medical professionals from providing puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy to new transgender patients under age 18.

“Though there may be a carve-out for people already receiving gender-affirming care, that is way too close a call for us to risk staying,” Turmelle’s mother, Amy Manzetti, wrote in an op-ed piece at the time. “Other New Hampshire laws also seek to erase her.”

Most Republican-controlled states in the past five years have adopted laws or policies limiting gender-affirming care for transgender minors and limiting which school bathrooms transgender people can use, as well as sports restrictions. The Williams Institute at UCLA estimates that about 3% of youth ages 13 to 17 identify as transgender.

“The challenges with relocation are significant and burdensome — this includes having to find new employment, buying and selling homes, packing and moving possessions, integrating kids with a new school system, losing access to longstanding family and friends, and potential loss of income,” Corinne Goodwin, the executive director of Eastern PA Trans Equality Project in Pennsylvania, said in an email.

“But these families do so because they love their kids and know that supporting them with the care and opportunities they need is critical to their long-term success and happiness.”

The other teen gave up playing soccer at high school

Tirrell, 17, began her junior year last fall on the girls’ junior varsity soccer team. Things were fine at first, and each time she scored a goal, she got a round of ice cream from her parents. But a few weeks into the season, she decided to stop playing.

“With all of the political stuff going on, soccer wasn’t just about the game anymore,” her mother, Sara Tirrell, told The Associated Press in an interview.

It became more about preparing for the possibility of conflict.

“Were there any local Facebook groups where they were sort of agitating about potential protests and how do we prepare, and what are we walking into, and we never kind of knew,” she said. “We were on a lot of pins and needles, especially after the previous season.”

She was referring to a controversy at an away game where two dads from an opposing team were banned from school grounds for wearing pink wristbands marked “XX” to represent female chromosomes. They sued the school district and a judge ruled against them. They have appealed their case.

Last fall, there was an increased presence of school administrators at the games and bus drivers pulled in closer to the field so the students weren’t in the parking lot, she said.

“Parker didn’t talk about it a lot, but I think she could see that stress for everybody — for her, for her teammates, for her coaches,” Sara Tirrell said. “She felt kind of bad about pulling them all into that circus again. And so she ultimately said, ‘This isn’t fun anymore and I don’t want to do it.’”

Parker’s father described the atmosphere as “palpable tension.”

Even playing on her own turf, “there would typically be a couple of police officers at the home games where there weren’t previously,” Zach Tirrell said.

In the past, Parker also played soccer in a recreation league and could still do so.

“But I think it all kind of still sort of weighs on her,” her mother said. “It’s the same group of kids that she plays with who, honestly, have been very supportive and love to have her on the team and have expressed that to her many times over. But I think she still has that worry in her brain around, ‘What are other people going to say and do if I show up at a game?’”

Parker’s parents hope she’ll return to playing soccer some day. In the meantime, “she plans to be around and use her voice to continue standing up to discrimination,” her mother said. “In some ways she’s had to grow up a lot faster than some of her peers.”

McCormack writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Geoff Mulvihill in Haddonfield, N.J., contributed to this report.

StubHub is getting a red card from some World Cup fans

Two World Cup customers are suing the New York-based ticket-selling company, alleging “false and misleading” advertising that left them without tickets or a refund for the World Cup games they paid to attend.

In federal court in New York last week, two Californians — Julia Reeker Moghal and Reuben Renteria — sued StubHub seeking monetary damages and a ban on the company selling World Cup tickets. The lawsuit aims to become a class action and comes after weeks of fierce criticism and complaints from customers regarding the company’s practices.

Throughout the World Cup, videos have emerged on Instagram and TikTok of StubHub customers describing their nightmare experiences with the ticket-selling platform.

Some said they had purchased tickets to World Cup games as early as November of last year, booked flights and hotels and arranged travel plans, then StubHub notified them days to weeks before the match of a refund for their tickets, which they never requested.

There were similar complaints about last-minute cancellations from people who bought Coachella tickets on StubHub.

In the lawsuit, Moghal said she had purchased three tickets for nearly $2,000 for the June 18 match between Switzerland and Bosnia-Herzegovina at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, which were then canceled by StubHub. Moghal said she was contacted by StubHub and told her tickets would remain canceled, then was later told the tickets would be available one hour before the game.

When the match began, Moghal said she was at SoFi Stadium, but the tickets never came.

Renteria said he paid around $2,300 for the June 18 Mexico versus South Korea match in Guadalajara, Mexico, but they were canceled

“Devoted soccer fans have traveled from around the world to attend World Cup matches — and they reasonably relied on StubHub to provide the tickets they paid for as well as on StubHub’s warranty,” Blake Hunter Yagman, the attorney representing the two, said in a statement. “Instead of rewarding their business, StubHub sold them World Cup tickets that they either could not provide or on speculation, only to be stranded, in many cases, at the stadium gates without any recourse.”

According to StubHub’s website, its Fan Protect Guarantee states the platform will deliver valid tickets or refund in the event of a ticket issue, and that it will “go out of our way to find replacement tickets” of a comparable value. The lawsuit alleges the replacement tickets many fans were given by StubHub were worse than their original tickets.

FIFA, the World Cup organizer, states in its terms and conditions that the FIFA Marketplace, its own ticket-selling platform, is the only authorized platform for World Cup tickets, and that only tickets purchased through it are guaranteed by FIFA to be valid.

Despite the risk of purchasing through a third-party platform such as StubHub, many fans opted to do so to avoid the 30% FIFA resale tax, believing that the Fan Protect Guarantee would safeguard their order.

Since World Cup tickets began selling on FIFA Marketplace last September, fans have expressed disappointment in the expensive price tag. FIFA utilized a dynamic pricing system for the sale, and as sales phases progressed leading up to the games, the cost of tickets increased tremendously. In March, the extreme cost of tickets prompted 69 members of Congress to write a letter to FIFA urging them to lower their prices.

Tickets for the upcoming Friday match between Spain and Belgium in Los Angeles are selling on StubHub for over $1,300.

StubHub said in various statements to the news and in legal proceedings that ticket cancellations were a result of transfer problems and issues with FIFA’s ticketing infrastructure.

StubHub did not respond to requests for comment.

A FIFA spokesperson responded to this accusation in a statement, saying, “FIFA has no visibility over, or control of, secondary market ticket transactions carried out on third-party platforms. The transactions facilitated on these platforms occur entirely independently of FIFA’s official ticketing platform. With reference to the reliability of the services available to fans on FIFA’s official ticket platform, FIFA rejects any suggestion that the functional issues being experienced by users of third-party platforms with respect to FIFA World Cup 2026 tickets are the result of FIFA’s ticketing infrastructure.”

It has taken two years, but the parents of the late Calvin “CJ” Dickey Jr. have finally been able to express appreciation for the efforts of authorities in the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office. Still, they are a long way from what they might consider a satisfactory resolution.

Dickey died after collapsing during the first day of Bucknell University football training camp in July 2024. The freshman lineman was put through rigorous drills by strength and conditioning coach Mark Kulbis, according to the attorney general’s office, even though Kulbis knew Dickey had sickle cell trait. The medical condition can increase the risk of serious injury or death following extreme exertion.

Dickey, 18, was taken to the hospital and died two days later.

Kulbis, who left Bucknell in January 2025, has been charged with felony aggravated hazing and misdemeanor counts of involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and hazing, according to the attorney general’s office. Bail was set at $10,000.

“The facts show this was an intentional, deliberate hazing perpetrated by a coach who knew CJ’s health condition made him vulnerable to extreme workouts,” Atty. Gen. Dave Sunday said in a statement. “The facts show this defendant received information about CJ’s health condition, along with training about NCAA anti-hazing standards, and disregarded that information. This is an extraordinary tragedy, worsened by the fact that CJ’s death was preventable.”

Reached by the Associated Press on Tuesday, Dickey’s father, Calvin Sr., said that he and his wife, Nicole, are “at the point where we’re just glad that someone is being held responsible for our son’s death. We just want to see the process through, and we’re going to leave it to the attorney general to continue following the evidence.”

Dickey’s parents filed a lawsuit in April 2025 against Bucknell and its athletic staff, alleging that CJ’s death was the result of a hazing ritual for freshmen players.

“While the University will not comment on pending litigation, we again extend heartfelt sympathies to CJ’s family, and we will continue to focus on our most important priority — the health and safety of all Bucknell students,” Bucknell told ESPN in a statement.

According to an autopsy report issued by Montour County, Dickey was diagnosed with “exercise collapse associated with sickle cell trait,” rhabdomyolysis and acute renal failure.

With rhabdomyolysis, kidneys become strained when proteins and electrolytes from damaged muscle tissue are released into the bloodstream. Studies have shown that sickle cell trait can be fatal when coupled with rhabdomyolysis.

In the lawsuit, Dickey’s parents alleged that Bucknell athletic trainers and coaches knew their son had sickle cell trait and failed to take steps to ensure precautions were in place.

“We have asked repeatedly for not just a high-level overview of what happened that day, but for the details, the specific fully transparent details,” Nicole Dickey told NPR shortly after the lawsuit was filed. “We’ve reached the point with Bucknell where we do not feel that we’re going to get that. The only path for us to get that truth is to file the civil lawsuit.”

More than a year later, the charges brought against Kulbis created another path that Dickey’s parents hope lead to a resolution.

“We do this for CJ, for every young man on that team, and anyone who comes after him, and anyone at any university,” Nicole Dickey told ESPN. “This is a longer, harder path, and I am ready for it. My boy is worth it.”

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an attempt by a conservative activist to obtain guardianship records in an effort to find ineligible voters in the presidential battleground state.

The case has been wending its way through the courts for years and stems from attempts by conservatives to overturn President Biden’s victory in Wisconsin over President Trump in 2020.

Here’s what to know:

A conservative activist brought the case

The case tested the line between protecting personal privacy rights and ensuring that ineligible people can’t vote.

Former travel executive Ron Heuer and a group he leads, the Wisconsin Voter Alliance, brought the lawsuit in 2022 alleging that the number of ineligible voters doesn’t match the count on Wisconsin’s voter registration list. The lawsuit doesn’t specify how many people could be affected.

In Wisconsin, a guardianship order is granted by a court giving a person certain legal rights over another who is determined to be unable to make decisions about their life. A court has the power to remove the right to vote from a person under a guardianship order if the person is determined to be unable to understand “the objective of the election process.”

Heuer asked the state Supreme Court to rule that counties must release records filed when a judge determines that someone isn’t competent to vote so that those names can be compared to the voter registration list.

Heuer’s attorney, Erick Kaardal, argued that privacy concerns could be balanced with the public’s right to access government records by redacting identifying or sensitive information on the forms.

But the attorney for Walworth County said those seeking access to the records wanted to cross-check ineligible voters against the names of those registered. They can’t do that, attorney Sam Hall said during oral arguments, without releasing the person’s name and address.

Hall praised the ruling, saying it “protects the privacy of vulnerable individuals while preserving their dignity.”

Kaardal did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, which advocates for public access to documents but did not take a position on this case, said the court’s decision was “narrowly tailored and should not have a huge impact.”

The council praised the court for clarifying the standard for deciding similar cases in the future, but that “it’s always disappointing when access to public information is curtailed.”

Signs supporting Judge Susan Crawford, and voting and election officials adorn the front yard of a home on South 16th Street on election day April 1, 2025, in Milwaukee.

(Kayla Wolf / Associated Press)

Liberal justices who control Wisconsin Supreme Court reject the case

In the 5-2 ruling on Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority along with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn ruled that the records are not public as the conservative activist had claimed.

The court took the case after two lower state appeals courts issued divergent rulings. One appeals court, based in Madison, denied access to the records while another appeals court, based in Waukesha, said in 2023 that the records should be made public.

It ordered Walworth County to release them with birth dates and case numbers redacted.

The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court ruling that the records should be made public.

State law is clear that the records being sought are not public and “the Alliance has no right to the records,” Justice Janet Protasiewicz wrote for the majority.

Conservative justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley dissented, saying the court adopted “an overbroad and unworkable definition of what records pertain to a finding of incompetency” to include the forms that indicate a person has been found ineligible to vote.

Those forms are not pertinent to the finding of incompetency and are therefore subject to the open records law, Ziegler and Bradley wrote.

The case was one of several targeting the 2020 election

The case was an attempt by those who questioned the outcome of the 2020 presidential race to cast doubt on the integrity of elections in the presidential swing state. Heuer and the WVA filed lawsuits in 13 Wisconsin counties in 2022 seeking guardianship records.

Heuer and the WVA have pushed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election in a failed attempt to overturn Biden’s win in Wisconsin. Heuer was hired as an investigator in the discredited 2020 election probe led by former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman. The probe found no evidence of fraud or abuse that would have changed the election results.

The WVA also filed two unsuccessful lawsuits that sought to overturn Biden’s win in Wisconsin.

Trump won Wisconsin in 2024 after losing in 2020

Biden defeated Trump by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin in 2020, a result that has withstood independent and partisan audits and reviews, as well as lawsuits and the recounts Trump requested. Trump won Wisconsin in 2024 by about 29,000 votes.

There are no pending lawsuits challenging the results of the 2024 election or calls to investigate the outcome.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

LOS ANGELES — A lawsuit filed Tuesday alleges that the Trump administration’s immigration agencies have been sharing confidential information about Iranian asylum seekers with the Iranian government, violating national immigration regulations and endangering countless Iranians, court filings argue.

The lawsuit depicts a coordinated campaign between the U.S. and Iranian governments to identify Iranians in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody and pressure them to return to Iran — a marked departure from decades of diplomatic hostility between the two governments and an ongoing war.

Roughly 600 Iranians were put in immigration detention last year, according to public records obtained by the National Iranian American Council. In June, an Iranian woman was among the two dozen migrants the U.S. deported to the Central African Republic — in a marked departure from a decades-long practice by the U.S. of welcoming Iranian dissidents, exiles and others since the 1979 Islamic Revolution forced a large number of Iranians to flee.

The U.S. government is allowed to work with government officials of foreign countries to coordinate deportation logistics. However, federal regulations passed in the late 1990s prohibit the government from sharing information that could reveal that the individual getting deported applied for asylum.

“Congress made these confidentiality protections mandatory precisely because lives depend on them, and no agency and no administration, of either party, may set them aside,” said Ali Rahnama, the interim executive director of Iranian American Legal Defense Fund.

Starting in March 2025, the U.S. State Department arranged monthly meetings with Iranian officials, using the Pakistani embassy as an intermediary, in which U.S. officials shared detailed, sensitive information about detained Iranian immigrants who the U.S. government hoped to deport, lawyers for the Iranian American Legal Defense Fund and the Public Citizen Litigation Group wrote in a complaint.

The information included details about asylum applications filed by people who say they were persecuted for converting to Christianity, for their sexuality or for participating in the Women, Life, Freedom protests against the Iranian government in 2022, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

ICE forced Iranian asylum applicants who had been detained in numerous facilities, mostly southern states, to meet with an Iranian government official who had extensive and specific knowledge about their applications, according to the complaint. The information was shared even after the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran started the Iran war in February 2026.

The lawsuit is seeking to halt sharing information about asylum seekers with the Iranian government and appoint an independent monitor to prevent future disclosures.

“Despite the U.S.’s ongoing war with Iran, the administration seems more committed to mass deportation than protecting human lives,” Michael Kirkpatrick, attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group said in a statement.

The complaint names the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin and the Department of State as some of the defendants. The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment on Tuesday morning.

The allegations come amid President Trump’s ambitious and aggressive immigration crackdown that involved over 600,000 deportations and causing roughly 1.9 million immigrants to voluntarily leave in 2025 alone, according to an announcement made by DHS.

Iranian officials acknowledged in September 2025 that as many as 400 Iranians could be returned under an agreement with the Trump’s administration. That month, the first of three deportation flights brought dozens of Iranians back to Iran. The second deportation flight was in December 2025, and the final recorded deportation flight departed at the end of January 2026, roughly a month before the war on Iran started, and just weeks after the Iranian government killed thousands of citizens as part of a brutal crackdown on protests. The New York Times reported at the time that some of those deported in the flights in September, December and January were asylum seekers.

Riddle writes for the Associated Press.

A civil jury says R&B star Chris Brown must face the music for the vicious dog attack that in 2020 left one of the two housekeepers working at his Tarzana home hospitalized with injuries to her face, arm and leg.

The Los Angeles jury on Tuesday found the 37-year-old Grammy winner liable in the years-long case and determined he must pay nearly $13 million to Maria Avila, whose sister Patricia Avila sued Brown and his Black Pyramid Co. in April 2021. Court documents reviewed by The Times on Wednesday show that Brown owes Maria Avila $12.9 million in damages including emotional distress and medical expenses. Brown must also pay $885,000 in damages to Patricia Avila, who was present during the dog attack on her sister, and $50,000 in damages to Maria’s husband.

Patricia Avila’s attorney Michael C. Murphy Jr. told The Times in a statement his team was “thrilled” by the outcome. “We are so happy for her and her family after everything they went through on that horrible day,” he said. “It was an honor to represent her.”

A legal representative for Brown did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment on Wednesday.

Patricia Avila filed her civil suit against Brown in Los Angeles County Superior Court five years ago, suing the singer for premises liability, negligent infliction of emotional distress and strict liability. At the time, she was seeking an unspecified amount of damages including loss of wages, medical expenses and legal fees.

Avila alleged in her lawsuit that she and sister Maria Avila were hired in November 2020 as housekeepers at Brown’s home in Tarzana. The suit says the sisters were aware the singer owned dogs at the property and understood he kept the pets locked up in a different part of the home. According to the complaint, the incident occurred in December 2020 when Maria went to the home’s backyard to empty out a vacuum. There, she encountered the singer’s Caucasian shepherd, which “proceeded to viciously attack Maria,” the lawsuit said.

“Plaintiff [Patricia] fully recognized that the screams were coming from her own sister, knew that her sister went outside to empty a vacuum, and could hear that a dog was violently attacking her sister,” the lawsuit said. “The screams were so bad that it caused Plaintiff to immediately run outside, where she found her sister covered in blood while she was screaming and crying for help. Mr. Brown proceeded to call 911.”

The lawsuit said the dog attacked Maria around her eye, her left arm and had bitten into her leg. Paramedics responded to Brown’s home and transported the woman to a hospital, where she remained for multiple days and underwent two surgeries. Patricia Avila said in the complaint that she suffered emotional distress and had been unable to work as a result of the incident.

The jury reached its decision after a two-week trial in Van Nuys.

As one legal saga appears to be coming to an end, another awaits Brown. The singer and his friend Omololu Akinlolu, a musician who performs as HoodyBaby), are set to stand trial in October for allegedly attacking music producer Amadou “Abe” Diaw in February 2023 at a London nightclub.
The singer, who notably assaulted ex-girlfriend and Fenty beauty mogul Rihanna the night before the 2009 Grammy Awards, pleaded not guilty last year in the Diaw case. He pleaded not guilty to one count of attempting to unlawfully and maliciously cause grievous bodily harm with intent, assault causing actual bodily harm and having an offensive weapon.

Brown is performing with Usher on their joint North American stadium tour. The singers will take over Inglewood’s SoFi Stadium on Sept. 25 and 26.

WASHINGTON — Former CIA Director John Brennan sued the Trump administration on Wednesday, demanding a court order that would require officials to preserve records from investigations that he says are targeting him for “phantom criminal conduct.”

Brennan said in the lawsuit that the records would be essential for him to mount a defense on vindictive prosecution grounds in the event of an indictment brought by the administration. Such a defense, his lawyers said, would be supported by the more than 100 verbal or written statements that President Trump has made since 2017 lambasting Brennan and by the Republican president’s directives to his Department of Justice to initiate cases “without regard to factual or legal justification.”

“To fully consider those motions, the reviewing judge would need to scrutinize the motivations of the Justice Department officials who directed, oversaw, or undertook those actions to determine whether they violated Director Brennan’s rights, and specifically whether they were motivated by a desire to vindictively prosecute him as an act of retribution,” Brennan’s lawyers wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington.

The lawsuit names as defendants Trump and other top law enforcement officials from his administration, including acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel and the prosecutors in Florida who have been overseeing investigations related to Brennan and other perceived Trump adversaries.

The lawsuit says Brennan is facing separate investigations in Florida, including one examining whether he made a false statement to Congress related to an assessment by intelligence agencies documenting Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, in which Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton. The other investigation aims to determine whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired to undermine Trump, including during the course of the Russian interference investigation.

No charges have been brought. The Department of Justice has denied claims of weaponization.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

California’s effort to restrict sales of handguns that can be converted into fully-automatic machine guns drew an immediate federal challenge Wednesday, with the Trump administration suing the state over its new “Glock ban” law just hours after it took effect.

The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking a court order to block the controversial state law that limits where most Glock and Glock-style pistols can be sold. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, also aims to invalidate key parts of the state’s handgun roster — a list that dictates the types of firearms that Californians may legally purchase. In a statement Wednesday, acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said that both policies “trample” the rights of law-abiding Californians.

“The Second Amendment is a sacred right belonging to all Americans, even those in California,” Blanche said. “California cannot ban the most popular type of handgun in America.”

California’s Assembly Bill 1127 does not explicitly name the Glock brand, but instead targets any handgun with a specific mechanism that can easily be converted by a black market device. These simple “Glock switches” convert semiautomatic handguns into a weapon capable of firing 20 rounds per second with a single squeeze of the trigger.

Advances in 3D printing have made the conversion devices widely available and cheap to produce. Federal authorities reported recovering 11,088 of them from crime scenes between 2019 and 2023. Switches have been used in several mass shootings, including one in Sacramento that resulted in six deaths and 12 injuries in 2022.

The new law does not prohibit the possession of affected handguns already owned by Californians, and includes exemptions for gun dealers, as well as law enforcement and military agencies.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill in October, and has maintained that firearm laws are responsible for California’s declining crime rates and gun deaths.

“The Trump administration is once again trying to dismantle California’s commonsense gun safety laws,” Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for the governor, said in a statement. “Our response is simple — these laws save lives.”

The federal government argues in its complaint that California can’t ban legal semiautomatic handguns simply because they could be illegally altered, adding that state and federal law already prohibit such pistol converters. The U.S. compared California’s approach to banning ordinary shotguns because they can be illegally shortened.

The lawsuit also challenges California’s decades-old handgun roster, which requires new handgun models to pass certain safety tests before they can be approved for retail sale. A federal judge tentatively blocked portions of the roster requirements in a separate 2023 case, which is being appealed before the 9th Circuit. That lawsuit was filed by the California Rifle & Pistol Assn. and other gun rights supporters following a landmark 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that set new standards for evaluating firearm restrictions.

Under those new guidelines, the Trump administration wants a judge to find that California’s gun restrictions violate the 2nd Amendment, and is seeking an order to bar the state from enforcing them.

The Trump administration is relying on a federal civil rights law typically used against police departments accused of repeated constitutional violations, arguing that California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and state Justice Department agents qualify as peace officers and therefore violate gun owners’ rights whenever they enforce handgun restrictions.

Bonta, who is named in the suit, has a winning court record over the Trump administration, and has secured at least 12 final court rulings and more than 35 preliminary injunctions or emergency orders.

“We won’t be intimidated by another politically motivated lawsuit,” said Crofts-Pelayo, Newsom’s spokesperson. “We’ll continue defending the laws that protect Californians and keep dangerous weapons off our streets.”

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.”