lawsuit

David Ellison’s Paramount Skydance has asked a judge to force California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and his coalition of 11 other states to prepare to set aside as much as $1.9 billion as the Warner Bros. Discovery merger challenge heads into overtime.

In Monday’s court filing, Paramount requested the plaintiff states, including New York, Colorado, Oregon and Nevada, as well as the Writers Guild of America, post a bond that would cover the “ticking fees” Paramount promised to pay Warner shareholders should the deal stretch beyond its anticipated September close.

Ellison was confident his proposed Warner takeover would sail through its regulatory clearances. President Trump’s Justice Department approved the merger in June, as have dozens of other countries.

The states would not be required to pay the full $1.9 billion upfront. Instead, they would have to come up with a portion of that amount by Sept. 30. Should the Democrat state attorneys general and WGA lose their lawsuits, they would ultimately have to pay the full amount.

Monday’s court filing highlights Ellison’s frustrations and the financial pressures that deal delays will bring the media company. The filing also continues Paramount’s full-court political pressure campaign to get Bonta and the other states to abandon their antitrust lawsuit.

Paramount did not expect such a spirited challenge from Bonta and the 11 other Democratic state attorneys general who banded together with the WGA to try to block the $111-billion merger of two historic Hollywood studios.

Paramount’s 23-page filing, signed by former high profiile federal prosecutor Danielle Sassoon, was intended to rattle the states.

Paramount is trying to create divisions among the plaintiff states by prompting them to question their resolve in fighting a protracted and potentially expensive legal battle, according to a person familiar with Paramount’s strategy who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Because WGA has separately sued to unravel the deal, Paramount has asked the judge to have the union post a bond to cover some of the costs, too.

In its motion, Paramount cited the Clayton Antitrust Act, which is the foundation for Bonta’s lawsuit. The law carries a provision to require plaintiffs to post a bond to cover the potential financial harms of halting a transaction.

The bond gives a defendant, in this case Paramount, a way to recover lost funds should they ultimately prevail in court.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín will be asked to rule on the request during a Wednesday court hearing.

“We have satisfied all closing conditions under our merger agreement, having received regulatory clearances from 68 jurisdictions,” Paramount said in a statement. “These two lawsuits are the only barrier to closing this transaction.”

Paramount is incurring considerable legal fees and deal-related costs.

The company cited a potential eight-month merger delay because Martínez-Olguín scheduled the trial for March 2. If the case goes to trial, it might not be decided until next May.

At issue are the “ticking fees” that Paramount in February agreed pay to Warner investors should the merger be delayed . Paramount agreed to pay $.25 a share for every quarter until the acquisition finalizes.

The fees add up to $7 million a day, or $650 million per quarter.

Paramount is facing a June 4 deadline to close the deal. That’s when Warner Bros. Discovery can demand a $7-billion break-up fee.

Paramount wants to get the deal done as soon as possible, and with the approval of Mexican regulators last week, only Bonta and the states’ lawsuit stands in their way.

Paramount also is cognizant of shifting winds in Washington should Democrats regain control of Congress in November, which could bring fresh scrutiny to the merger .

Ticking fees weren’t the only costs of the extended timeline.

“There will be no integration and no ramped-up investment in content, production, and creative talent by the combined company,” Paramount said . “Employees of both Paramount and WBD are also harmed by the uncertainties caused by the delay.”

Last week, the Directors Guild of America and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees — which represent a combined 200,000 union members — waded into the clash over the merger, which continues to carve deep divisions throughout the industry.

“We remain confident that plaintiffs’ case is without merit and will defend our pro-competitive transaction in court,” Paramount said. “We look forward to closing this transaction and delivering its benefits to consumers and entertainment industry workers in California, the United States and around the world.”

The family of actor Robert Carradine filed a lawsuit against the governing body of UCLA, saying that the “Revenge of the Nerds” star’s death by suicide in February at a university-affiliated psychiatric facility was preventable.

In a legal complaint filed Aug. 7 with Los Angeles County Superior Court, the children of Carradine allege that the psychiatric care team at the UCLA health facility was reckless in its care and committed elder abuse and neglect.

Carradine, 71, had checked into the facility shortly before his death.

The 27-page suit names the UC regents as defendants, along with physicians, nurses, clinical care partners and other officials who are identified as “Does 1-100.” Plaintiffs in the suit include Carradine’s estate and his surviving children.

“He asked for help. He recognized that he was a danger to himself and voluntarily walked into a psychiatric hospital to be kept safe,” the family claimed in the suit reviewed by The Times. “He knew he was not safe to be left alone.”

Carradine had bipolar disorder, and the lawsuit says that he had admitted that he had “suicidal thoughts” when he checked into UCLA Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital in Westwood.

“Instead of walking into a safe environment, [Carradine] walked into a locked facility that broke a cardinal rule for a hospitalized psychiatric patient with active suicidal thoughts and a history of suicide attempts,” the lawsuit says. “UCLA let him walk into a locked psychiatric unit with a belt.”

The family also said hospital staff left him in a room with a table that had not been removed from his unit before being placed there, according to the lawsuit. He died about 19 hours after checking into the facility, the lawsuit says.

“None of this happened because UCLA lacked the knowledge, the policies or the means,” the civil complaint says. “It happened because UCLA took shortcuts with two safeguards that were meant to protect Robert’s life. UCLA gave Robert the means to hurt himself and then no one watched over him or checked on him for long periods of time despite orders to watch him every 15 minutes.”

The lawsuit says that UCLA staff was distracted during Carradine’s observation intake and that they falsified their records to reflect proper care.

The Times has reached out to the UC regents and UCLA Health for comment.

The youngest son of prolific character actor John Carradine, Robert Carradine was born on March 24, 1954, in Los Angeles. Known for both his film and television work, Carradine made his debut in a 1971 episode of the long-running western “Bonanza.” His first film appearance was in the 1972 John Wayne western “The Cowboys.”

During his 50-year Hollywood career, he appeared alongside his brother David in a 1972 episode of “Kung Fu” and the 1973 Martin Scorsese film “Mean Streets.” Alongside his brothers David and Keith, Robert joined other sets of acting siblings to portray sets of real-life siblings in the 1980 western “The Long Riders.” Carradine also landed roles in Hal Ashby’s 1978 Vietnam War drama “Coming Home” and Samuel Fuller’s 1980 World War II epic “The Big Red One.”

“It is with profound sadness that we must share that our beloved father, grandfather, uncle, and brother Robert Carradine has passed away,” the Carradine family said in a statement following the actor’s death. “In a world that can feel so dark, Bobby was always a beacon [of] light to everyone around him. We are bereft at the loss of this beautiful soul and want to acknowledge Bobby’s … nearly two-decade battle with Bipolar Disorder.

“We hope his journey can shine a light and encourage addressing the stigma that attaches to mental illness. At this time, we ask for the privacy to grieve this unfathomable loss. With gratitude for your understanding and compassion.”

In the 2000s, Carradine charmed a new generation of fans as lovable TV dad Sam in “Lizzie McGuire.”

“There was so much warmth in the McGuire family, and I always felt so cared for by my on-screen parents,” the show’s star, Hilary Duff, wrote in her Instagram tribute to her on-screen dad. “I’ll be forever grateful for that. I’m deeply sad to learn Bobby was suffering. My heart aches for him, his family, and everyone who loved him.”

Carradine’s family and estate are seeking unspecified general and wrongful-death damages and compensation for medical expenses incurred during his hospitalization.

The U.S. Department of Justice and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department have agreed to settle a lawsuit over what federal prosecutors alleged last year was a pattern of delaying applications for permits to carry concealed firearms for “unreasonable” lengths of time.

The Sheriff’s Department will “bring its procedures in line with the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen decision,” the DOJ said in a statement Thursday, referring to a 2022 high court decision affirming a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.

Excessively delaying applications for concealed carry permits, the DOJ had alleged, effectively violated the applicants’ constitutional rights.

In response to its lawsuit, the DOJ’s statement said, the Sheriff’s Department “drastically cut those waiting times and is now in compliance with statutory deadlines.” The development is “a huge win for the residents of Los Angeles County and for the Second Amendment,” the federal agency added.

“The Justice Department supports our law enforcement partners.” Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said in the statement. “The sheriff acknowledged the problem and devoted substantial additional resources, including new processing software and additional personnel, to cutting waiting times dramatically.”

The Sheriff’s Department did not immediately provide comment on the settlement.

In its complaint filed in federal district court in L.A. in September, the DOJ claimed that the Sheriff’s Department had “systematically denied thousands of law-abiding Californians their fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home — not through outright refusal, but through a deliberate pattern of unconscionable delay.”

The complaint stated that between Jan. 2, 2024, and March 31, 2025, the Sheriff’s Department received almost 4,000 applications for new concealed carry licenses, but issued only two. Two others were denied and the rest were either withdrawn or were still pending, according to the DOJ.

The DOJ complaint also cited Sheriff’s Department data that showed that over those 15 months, it took an average of nearly 300 days for the department to advance the more than 8,000 new permit applications and renewals it received.

The Sheriff’s Department said in September that Sheriff Robert Luna, who was also listed by name as a defendant in the original federal complaint, “inherited a dysfunctional system” when he took office in 2022, and that he had only 13 people to manage the avalanche of applications for concealed carry permits filed each year in L.A. County.

The department also said in September that since December 2022, it had reduced “the backlog” of applications for concealed carry licenses from about 10,000 to about 3,200, and that more than 19,000 such applications had been “successfully approved” since 2020.

Abdul El-Sayed made history this month in Michigan by becoming the first Muslim nominated by the Democratic Party to run for the U.S. Senate. But elation among many of his fellow Muslim Americans was tempered by awareness of persisting and widespread anti-Muslim sentiment across much of the nation.

Some Republicans, including President Trump, swiftly began referring to the nominee by his full name, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, while depicting him as a danger to America. “Every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse, and a threat to both national security and our republic,’’ said U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., in a post on X.

El-Sayed says such attacks betray a weakness in those who launch them.

“We all pray for the same things. … We want what’s good for our kids and our families,” he told MS NOW after his primary victory. “They’re going to use Islamophobia, because their ideas are tired.”

The vitriol extends far beyond the political class. Tensions related to anti-Muslim sentiment have heightened in several communities around the country, where some residents have bitterly opposed proposals to build new mosques.

“American Muslims have made incredible political and societal progress in recent years,” said Edward Ahmed Mitchell, national deputy director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR. He cited increased visibility in entertainment and sports and the election of Democrat Zohran Mamdani as New York City’s first Muslim mayor.

“But there also is a very concerted backlash to this progress,” Mitchell said. “You’ve seen this in the resurgence of anti-Muslim hate and rhetoric, the targeting of mosques.”

A Dallas suburb is a flashpoint

McKinney, Texas, a large suburb in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, is one of the flashpoints. Despite angry anti-Islam remarks at a heated city council meeting on Aug. 4, the council voted unanimously to approve a site plan for the McKinney Islamic Association’s proposed new mosque, classroom building and gym.

Among those urging the council to give the plan fair treatment was George Fuller, a former mayor of McKinney, a nonpartisan position. Opponents of the mosque project booed him, and some shouted “traitor” as he left the council chamber. One woman could be seen on video physically accosting him.

“I have never witnessed so much hate, anger and lack of humanity in our beautiful community gathered in one place as I did today at City Hall,” Fuller later wrote on Facebook.

During the hearing, which lasted more than four hours, the speakers included U.S. Rep. Keith Self, a Republican whose district includes McKinney. To loud applause, he urged the council to reject the mosque proposal.

“I know you’re in the accommodation phase, but the intimidation phase follows quickly,” Self said. “Child marriage. Honor killings. Don’t tell me it can’t happen here.”

Fuller also went to the microphone, evoking the broader phenomenon of divisive political rhetoric.

“Sadly, we live in a time when some have discovered that the easiest way to gain attention or win elections is not by offering solutions but by manufacturing fear, dividing communities, demonizing neighbors and turning misinformation into a political strategy,” he said.

In North Carolina, anger flares over approval for a new mosque

The scenario was similar in Mooresville, North Carolina, when town commissioners held a public comment session on Aug. 3 about a proposed mosque that had already been approved, with early phases of construction underway.

Angry residents at the meeting voiced hostility to Islam and assailed the commissioners for not being more forthcoming about the project as it took shape over previous months. One speaker cited violence in Nigeria by Islamist extremists as a reason for concern in Mooresville. Another depicted Islam as “a political regime with the ultimate goal of takeover in regions and nations.”

CAIR’s regional manager, Al Rieder, issued a statement denouncing “the hateful and conspiratorial anti-Muslim rhetoric” that surfaced at the meeting and expressed concern about the safety of Muslims in the area about 25 miles north of Charlotte.

“Muslims are your neighbors, your doctors, your teachers, your local politicians, your police,” he said.

A few hours after the public meeting, the town commissioners released a summary of the mosque project, which calls for a two-building Islamic center on a parcel acquired in 2019 by a local Muslim organization.

The commissioners said that the parcel is in an area zoned to allow religious assembly and that the mosque proposal was handled the same way as a proposal for a new church.

“All decisions must be based on adopted ordinances, objective standards and legal requirements, which do not allow for different rules for different religious groups,” the commissioners said. “We encourage all members of our community to remain respectful in their discussions and interactions as this project moves through the appropriate processes.”

In Oklahoma, Muslim leaders fight against the rebuff of a new mosque

A mosque controversy has been raging for many months in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, Tulsa’s largest suburb.

Back in January, at a stormy meeting attended by hundreds of people, the city council voted 4-1 to reject a rezoning proposal by the region’s Islamic Society to build Broken Arrow’s first mosque. Before the vote, dozens of residents voiced anti-Muslim views while opposing the project.

Council members who rejected the mosque had raised concerns about its potential impact on infrastructure such as roads, sewers and flood plain management.

But the Islamic Society is persisting with its quest. On Aug. 3, it filed a lawsuit against the mayor and four councilors, alleging that the vote reflected “a wave of bigoted opposition from members of the community and local politicians.” The lawsuit contends that the council violated state and federal laws governing religious land use, treating the mosque proposal differently from other comparable rezoning requests.

“They did not want a mosque in their city. They did not want Muslims here,” said Meghan Murphy, an attorney with CAIR’s Legal Defense Fund, at a news conference announcing the lawsuit. ”So they made up a reason, and in doing so they violated the law.”

Some see a terrorism threat while others see baseless scaremongering

Opposition to mosque construction isn’t a new phenomenon: In Murfreesboro, Tennessee, an effort launched in 2010 to block a mosque project dragged on for more than three years. The mosque was built anyway as the case moved through the courts, but members of the Muslim community faced public protests, vandalism, arson and a bomb threat during that span.

The latest anti-mosque campaigns coincide with a broad wave of anti-Muslim rhetoric from Republican officeholders over the past year. In Congress, several bills were introduced targeting sharia, the moral and spiritual framework that guides Muslims in prayer and ethical conduct. Some Republicans say they’re concerned about growing Muslim populations in major cities and potential ties to terrorism — fears that CAIR and other civil rights groups say are unfounded and being exploited for political purposes.

Republican governors in Texas and Florida have endorsed efforts to shut down CAIR, saying it has ties to terrorism. CAIR has denied the allegations and filed lawsuits calling the governors’ efforts unconstitutional.

Muslim American leaders view the vitriol as political scaremongering.

“Every election year, we expect a rise in anti-Muslim hate,” said CAIR’s Mitchell. “It’s been worse this year than it has been in years.”

Crary writes for the Associated Press.

Published on
13/08/2026 – 12:28 GMT+2

The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation went to court in New York on Wednesday to shut down Truth API, a subscription launched this month by Trump Media and Technology Group, the Nasdaq-listed company behind Truth Social.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The subscription provides privileged access to US President Donald Trump’s social media posts straight to trading firms, sending them fractions of a second before they appear on the public timeline, which is enough time for high-frequency algorithms to execute thousands of orders before others process the information.

Contracts run from about $60,000 (€52,000) to $100,000 (€86,600) a month and cover the platform’s 10 most-followed accounts, among them US President Donald Trump, the White House itself, US Vice President JD Vance, FBI Director Kash Patel and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

More than 10 customers have signed up, mostly high-frequency trading firms, according to company executives.

Interim CEO Kevin McGurn told an earnings call on Monday that subscribers receive news “fractionally faster” than everyone else, having earlier pitched it as a real-time channel for the platform’s most market-moving posts.

US President Donald Trump holds roughly 41% of the company through a revocable trust overseen by his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., with the stake currently worth close to $1 billion (€866mn).

Official announcements, The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation argue, belong to the public rather than to whoever pays most for them.

Two constitutional claims

The complaint, which names US President Donald Trump alongside deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, executive assistant Natalie Harp and the Executive Office of the President, calls the arrangement “profoundly corrupt”.

It argues the service breaches the First Amendment by denying equal access to presidential announcements and the Fifth by conditioning that access on unreasonable sums, noting that many of the 9,000 to 11,000 posts Trump has published since January 2025 came with no White House statement.

“Trump is trying to enrich himself by privatizing government information,” said Ben Muessig, editor-in-chief of The Intercept.

A Trump Media spokesperson countered that critics show “a failure to grasp the distinction between public and nonpublic information”, adding that left-wing activists were weaponising the courts.

The White House has not commented on the lawsuit which follows a request last month from US Senators Elizabeth Warren and Adam Schiff for the Securities and Exchange Commission to examine whether the service undermines market integrity.

A pattern that predates the paywall

The service formalises an advantage that has drawn questions for months.

On several occasions this year, futures markets have registered unusual bursts of activity minutes before major Iran war announcements appeared on US President Donald Trump’s account.

No investigation has reached a conclusion.

The clearest case came on 23 March, when the S&P 500 and oil futures recorded isolated volume spikes at about 6:50am in New York. Fifteen minutes later Trump posted that talks with Iran had taken place and strikes on its energy infrastructure were paused.

Equity futures jumped more than 2.5% and West Texas Intermediate fell almost 6%.

According to one analysis of 1,341 posts between late January and early April, conducted by the Queensland University of Technology, there were 15 episodes that raised suspicions of insider trading.

Reports citing judicial sources say former commercial banker also indicted over alleged financial crimes.

Lebanon has indicted ⁠former central bank Governor Riad Salameh and a former commercial banker over accusations of financial crimes, including embezzlement and illicit enrichment.

A judge accused Salameh and Samir Hanna, the former head of Lebanon’s Bank Audi, of embezzling tens of millions in funds ‌from the Banque du Liban or Lebanese central bank, the Reuters and AFP news agencies reported on Monday, citing judicial sources.

Salameh, who headed the central bank for three decades, has already been indicted and arrested in Lebanon over other alleged financial crimes committed during his tenure. He has denied any wrongdoing, insisting he is being made a “scapegoat” for the country’s economic crisis.

This is the first time a commercial banker has been indicted in a financial crimes case related to Salameh, showing that Lebanese investigations into the former governor are expanding to the private sector, the source told Reuters.

The source added that the file includes accusations that Hanna bribed Salameh while he was central bank governor.

Salameh, 76, headed the central bank from 1993 to July 2023. He was placed in custody last month after missing a hearing over the case, ⁠but is currently under medical supervision at a government hospital outside Lebanon’s capital, Beirut.

Hanna, 88, paid a $1m bail and is not in custody as financial investigations continue, according to the reports.

In January, Lebanon’s current central ⁠bank governor Karim Souaid told reporters that the central bank had filed a criminal complaint against an unnamed former official of the central bank, ⁠a former banker and a lawyer over alleged illicit enrichment ⁠through misuse of public funds. He said the operations were carried out through four offshore shell companies in the Cayman Islands that he did not name.

Salameh was detained for about 13 months over alleged ‌financial crimes ‌committed during his tenure, but was released in September after paying a record bail of more than $14m.

He also faces investigations abroad, including in France, Switzerland and Germany.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, said Friday he will vote to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, likely delivering the decisive vote needed to push President Trump’s embattled nominee to oversee the Justice Department.

Cassidy, who had expressed reservations about Blanche’s nomination, had been the last undecided Senate Republican, and his support all but locks in the 50 votes Blanche needs to be confirmed after two other GOP moderates — Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — said they would vote no. All Senate Democrats are expected to oppose the nomination.

Speaking from the Senate floor, Cassidy acknowledged Blanche was an imperfect pick, but that he had come to the conclusion that he would be better positioned to lead the Justice Department than another candidate, in part because he “knows the law.”

“Mr. Blanche is not perfect and he will tell you this,” Cassidy said. “But the choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche. It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general, who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.”

Cassidy, who lost his reelection bid to a Trump-backed challenger, said he is aware his decision will come with criticism, but said: “What’s new?” He then appeared to become emotional, as he assured his constituents that he worked “hard to understand the issue and make the right decision.”

The Louisiana lawmaker’s decision puts Blanche’s turbulent nomination process back on course. His path to confirmation was complicated over his involvement in a settlement agreement that included the creation of a nearly $1.8-billion so-called anti-weaponization fund that would have been used to pay Trump allies, including Jan. 6 rioters.

In an order issued Sunday night, Blanche declared the settlement dead. It was seen as an effort to appease GOP senators who threatened to block his confirmation. Despite the promise to terminate the settlement, Murkowski said she was worried the Trump administration could proceed with the proposed compensation fund, noting that the Senate only had leverage over the fund because Blanche’s nomination is pending.

“Once we vote, that will end, and there is no telling what the future holds,” she said.

The Justice Department also clarified in writing that a tax audit immunity agreement, which was part of the settlement agreement Blanche negotiated, would apply only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings.

It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit — Trump, two of his sons and the Trump Organization — are covered by the tax agreement. The fund and the immunity were the result of the settlement reached after Trump, two of his sons and their businesses sued the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of tax documents.

Lawmakers and legal experts have questioned the lawfulness of the tax protections for Trump. A federal judge who oversaw the IRS case has described Trump’s lawsuit as an improper exercise in self-dealing, and on Thursday the union representing IRS workers asked another judge to block the immunity agreement.

Trump has continued to support the idea of the fund and told reporters this week that he would still like to compensate Jan. 6 rioters, who he said have been “hurt so badly.”

Asked about Trump’s continued support for the fund on Tuesday, the day the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Blanche’s nomination, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said “there’s nothing we could do” to change Trump’s mind on it.

“Well, there’s nothing we could do to rein in the president when he said he likes the fund and he wishes it still exists. But the fact of the matter is it’s dead, and that’s all we could do under these circumstances,” Cornyn said.

When Cassidy announced his decision, Blanche was in Colombia, leading a U.S. presidential delegation to the inauguration of the country’s new president, Abelardo de la Espriella. As of Friday afternoon, he had not commented on the developments in Capitol Hill.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, posted on social media a news article with only its headline: “Todd Blanche wins votes for Senate confirmation.”

This article includes reporting from the Associated Press.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Tuesday that his office has protected more than $200 billion in federal funding for the state, defended core civil rights and removed military forces from Los Angeles streets by suing the Trump administration about once a week.

“Since President Trump returned to office, California has been under attack — and has led the way in fighting back,” Bonta said.

Bonta said his office has filed 82 lawsuits against the administration since Trump’s inauguration last year, in addition to 122 amicus briefs supporting lawsuits against the administration by other parties and 112 comment letters in response to federal actions.

That work has saved the state an estimated $207.1 billion, Bonta said, including $168 billion — equal to a third of the state’s annual budget — that was threatened when the Trump administration tried to freeze trillions of dollars in federal funding to the states last year. Billions in threatened cuts to transportation, emergency preparedness, education and family assistance funding were also prevented, Bonta said.

The work has also protected birthright citizenship for the U.S.- born children of immigrants, ensured that National Guard troops are not deployed in major California cities against the wishes of local leaders, lifted multiple sets of tariffs driving up costs for American consumers and repeatedly blocked administration efforts to interfere in California’s elections, Bonta said.

“We’ve protected funding that keeps our communities safe, feeds hungry families, and ensures our kids get the education they deserve. We’ve gone all the way to the Supreme Court to defend constitutional rights — and won. We’ve protected our elections and stopped the militarization of our cities. We’ve defended our right to prioritize public safety over assisting with the President’s inhumane immigration agenda,” Bonta said.

As it has done in the past, the White House on Tuesday derided Bonta’s lawsuits as misguided.

“Instead of bragging about filing frivolous lawsuits against the Trump Administration, the California AG should focus on addressing problems in his own state — like the countless criminal illegal aliens the Newscum Administration allows to roam free and terrorize communities,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson in a statement to The Times.

The White House has previously said Trump is “trying to restore American Greatness” and that Californians would be “infinitely better off” if Bonta got out of the president’s way.

Bonta’s office is required to report annually to the state Legislature on its work fighting the Trump administration as part of a 2025 special session measure delivering it an extra $25 million to fund such litigation. His office published its latest report to lawmakers Tuesday.

The report said the office had received $19.2 million of the special session funding through July 30, which had “contributed to — but in no way has been sufficient to cover — the costs of the litigation.”

Bonta’s office has also received regular appropriations to fund such litigation in each of the state’s last two budgets, of $14.2 million last fiscal year and $23.9 million this fiscal year. The office’s overall budget is about $1.4 billion.

At a morning news conference with other state leaders, Bonta said his office has spent close to $30 million on its “federal accountability work” overall since Trump took office, and argued that investment has been “paying off in droves” given the billions saved.

Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), standing with Bonta, agreed.

Limón said she was proud to have worked with Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom to form a “collective backstop” against the Trump administration, while Rivas said the funding provided to Bonta’s office “may be one of the smartest investments that this legislature has ever made.”

Of the 82 lawsuits, 66 remain active, according to the report. Despite that, Bonta said his office has won 45 orders providing some early relief from the Trump administration’s actions, and 21 final orders in its favor. In eight cases, he said, the administration “backed down” in advance of a trial.

Bonta’s office has lost arguments made against the Trump administration, including on behalf of other litigants, particularly on issues related to transgender rights and the scope of Trump’s executive power to reshape government and federal immigration policy.

However, Bonta claimed his office has won in 83% of the court orders issued in cases brought by the state and praised his team for having “worked around the clock on behalf of Californians, pulling countless all-nighters along the way” to make it possible.

Bonta, who is up for reelection in November, is campaigning in part on his willingness to stand up to Trump — which polling and voting has suggested many Californians want their elected officials to do.

Xavier Becerra, the Democratic candidate for California governor, is running on a similar message. Before he was the U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, Becerra had Bonta’s job and sued the first Trump administration more than 120 times, often successfully.

Bonta said he expects Becerra will be an “incredible partner” in the fight moving forward.

Republicans Michael Gates, who is running against Bonta, and Steve Hilton, who is running against Becerra and is endorsed by Trump, have said they would work collaboratively with the Trump administration to ensure the needs of Californians are met, rather than fighting it at every turn.

“I would be wanting to work with the administration to help Californians,” Hilton has said. Gates has called Bonta’s campaign against Trump “out of touch.”

Many of the lawsuits Bonta’s office has brought against the administration have been filed as part of a multistate coalition of Democratic attorneys general. As presidents of both parties have flexed more executive power in recent decades, state attorneys general have become more collaborative and litigious in fighting back — and that has been especially true under Trump.

Bonta said Trump will be remembered in part for his “repeated attacks on California, on Californians, on our Constitution, and on our democracy,” but California will be remembered for fighting back.

“Are these trying times? 100%. Absolutely, yes,” Bonta said. “But we shouldn’t be helpless, because we’re not helpless.”

WASHINGTON — Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche cleared a critical hurdle Tuesday in his bid to be confirmed to the post after swaying Republican holdouts on a Senate committee to advance his nomination for a floor vote.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-10 along party lines in support of the nomination of President Trump’s former personal attorney, who has aggressively pushed the Republican administration’s priorities since taking over from Pam Bondi in April.

The vote followed a deal struck late Sunday between Blanche and two Republican senators who had been threatening to block his confirmation over the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service regarding the president’s leaked tax returns.

Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina had said they were withholding their support unless the Justice Department confirmed in writing that it was not moving forward with a $1.8 billion fund to compensate Trump allies who believe they were prosecuted for political purposes, which the administration had announced as part of the settlement.

After days of negotiations, Blanche issued an order Sunday evening confirming “beyond any doubt, that there is no Fund.”

Since the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS was announced, “No Members were appointed; no funds were transferred; no process for receiving claims was established; no claims were paid,” the order said.

Cornyn and Tillis had also pressed for clarification on a separate part of the settlement that would grant Trump and members of his family immunity from tax audits.

Democrats complain about the fund

Under the deal, the Justice Department clarified in writing that the tax audit immunity agreement applies only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings. It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit — Trump, two of his sons, and the Trump Organization — are covered by the tax agreement.

Democrats say Blanche’s order doesn’t go far enough to prevent the Trump administration from reviving the fund after the acting attorney general’s confirmation and have called for legislation to permanently bar it. The order also doesn’t stop the administration from compensating Trump allies — including people who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — through a previously established process that allows people to file claims for damages if they believed they were wronged by the government.

The fund “can easily be revived with a new order from the Department of Justice 15 minutes after Mr. Blanche is confirmed as attorney general,” said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the committee.

Blanche’s independence has been called into question

Blanche has faced intense scrutiny regarding his ability to maintain independence from the White House, the Justice Department’s pursuit of the president’s political foes and the agency’s handling of files related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation.

But it was the settlement of Trump’s $10-billion lawsuit against the IRS that threatened to derail Blanche’s nomination, forcing a delay in the committee vote last week amid pressure from the two Republican senators, who are not returning to Capitol Hill after their terms end in January.

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the committee, said Tillis and Cornyn’s demands were “common sense.” Grassley said the senators’ concerns about the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and the IRS settlement were shared by many other lawmakers, including himself.

“I’m grateful that they as well as Mr. Blanche and the White House worked in good faith to solve them, formally rescinding the fund, clarifying the scope of the release of claims has put this issue to bed once and for all,” Grassley said.

Trump’s lawsuit has been sharply criticized because of the highly unusual way it was handled, with the president challenging an agency overseen by the executive branch he leads. A judge last month slammed the case as an improper exercise in self-dealing and referred one of Trump’s attorneys who filed it for potential disciplinary action.

Blanche was an important figure for Trump’s defense

Blanche, a former federal prosecutor and key member of Trump’s defense team as the Republican battled four indictments, arrived at the Justice Department last year as deputy attorney general. He was elevated to acting attorney general following Attorney General Pam Bondi’s failure to meet Trump’s demands to successfully prosecute his perceived political opponents.

While Blanche insisted he wasn’t auditioning for the permanent post, he moved swiftly to accelerate investigations into Trump foes and advance other White House priorities, drawing condemnation from critics who say he has not shed his title as Trump’s personal lawyer.

Shortly after Blanche took the top post, the Justice Department moved to indict longtime Trump adversary James Comey, the former FBI director, on charges of threatening the 47th president by posting a social media photograph of seashells in the numerical arrangement of “86 47.”

Comey’s lawyers have accused the Justice Department of misleading judges, submitting documents containing false statements and withholding key facts to bring what the defense described as a politically motivated prosecution.

Blanche separately appointed Joseph diGenova, an 81-year-old former Justice Department prosecutor from the Reagan administration, to oversee a Florida-based investigation into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired over the last decade to undermine Trump.

Richer and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.

California filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration Monday — one to block President Trump’s latest round of tariffs on international trading partners, the other to block his administration from sharing needy families’ personal data with immigration officials.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office brought the lawsuits alongside other Democratically led states, said they were both intended to rein in a lawless president pushing policies that threaten American families already struggling to afford basic necessities.

Bonta said the new tariffs are part of a “failed and illegal economic policy” that has previously been blocked in court. He alleged that the proposed data sharing was part of a broader and illegal “mass surveillance effort” by the Trump administration to target its political opponents.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the two lawsuits. But it has previously defended both tariffs and data-sharing policies as part of Trump’s “America first” agenda to improve the economic standing of American families.

Trump has defended his tariffs, and a previous set that was ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court, as necessary to fix years of unfair trading practices in which international partners took advantage of the U.S. However, many economists have determined that the cost of the tariffs are being passed on to U.S. consumers and contributing to the persistent inflation causing economic pain nationwide.

Trump, the White House and top officials in his administration have also defended the sharing of personal data among U.S. agencies, and from individual states to the federal government, as a commonsense way to reduce waste and fraud and to identify and remove people who are in the country illegally and consuming benefits intended for American families.

The administration has previously sought the personal data of Medicaid recipients, SNAP food assistance recipients, immigrants who have filed taxes with the Internal Revenue Service and registered voters in states across the country. All of those demands have also been challenged in court, with varying degrees of success.

Bonta’s office has now filed 82 lawsuits against the current Trump administration.

Tariff lawsuit

Trump’s latest tariffs, levies of between 10% and 12.5%, took effect late last month and apply to more than 80 countries, including some of the closest U.S. allies and largest trading partners such as Canada, Mexico and the European Union. They followed a Trump administration announcement of new 50% tariffs on many Canadian products, set to go into effect this month.

“Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the president’s failed and illegal economic policy — no matter how much the president wants them to,” Bonta said in announcing the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Two previous attempts by the Trump administration to unilaterally levy tariffs on trading partners were rejected by the courts in the face of similar legal challenges by California and other states. In February, the Supreme Court rejected a sweeping slate of tariffs Trump had imposed on an emergency basis. In May, the Court of International Trade turned back another set.

The Trump administration has said the president’s latest tariffs are authorized by a separate law not considered in the previous litigation — one related to combating forced labor in global trade.

The states’ lawsuit argued that the reliance on labor law was simply a “guise” used by Trump to impose new tariffs, and that “there is no rational fit between the purported problem of forced labor in international supply chains and the blanket global tariffs” imposed.

Bonta brought the case alongside the attorneys general or governors of 24 other states.

Data-sharing lawsuit

California joined a similar coalition of Democrat-led states to file a lawsuit challenging the sharing of needy families’ data, in federal court in Washington, D.C.

The lawsuit challenges a notice the Trump administration issued last month announcing the Administration of Children and Families would begin sharing the personal information of recipients in the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to outside agencies — including with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which houses Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other immigration enforcement units.

A spokesperson for the Administration for Children and Families said it does not comment on ongoing litigation.

The program provides $16 billion in grants annually to the states, which use it to provide cash assistance to low-income families. Some 350,000 families in California receive support through the program each month, Bonta’s office said.

Bonta said the sharing of program data with Homeland Security would be a clear violation of the law establishing the fund.

“The Trump Administration is exploiting a program designed to ensure children do not go hungry and to help needy families get back on their feet in order to fuel its mass surveillance effort. It’s cruel, unnecessary, and illegal,” Bonta said in a statement.

During a morning news conference, Bonta said one of his concerns is that immigration officials will use data to target the undocumented parents of U.S. citizen children who are legitimately receiving assistance through the program.

“They’re seeking Social Security information, marital status, income information,” he said. “We think that they might be interested in that information to potentially target parents.”

He said he also believes the data sharing is part of a much broader effort by the Trump administration to gather up as much data as possible in order to target individuals who do not conform with the administration’s political agenda, including on immigration policy and on issues such as abortion and gender-affirming care.

“While the Trump Administration continues to break the law in order to amass an ever-greater trove of people’s personal information, we’ll continue stepping in to protect the privacy of our people,” Bonta said.

The lawsuit is just the latest in a much broader legal war over the Trump administration’s drive to force all kinds of federal and state social services and financial programs to share the personal data of benefit recipients and other program users.

California is fighting alongside other states in court to block the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from sharing personal data of Medicaid recipients with Homeland Security, though some of that data have already been shared.

California is also fighting alongside other states in court to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand that states turn over the personal data of millions of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, recipients. The demand came with a threat from USDA that it would cut off funding to states that don’t comply. Courts have blocked the suspension of funds, but some data have been shared.

Immigrant rights groups, including Los Angeles-based Inclusive Action for the City, are also suing to block a Trump administration plan to share IRS taxpayer data with Homeland Security. The Trump administration has said the data sharing would be used to target only criminals, but immigrant rights advocates have denounced it as an attempt to do just the opposite — to target immigrants who have been in the country and paid taxes for years.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Pursuing a narrow path to retake control of the U.S. House, Democrats are seeing fresh opportunity in a northeast Ohio congressional district where the Republican incumbent is facing mounting pressure over domestic abuse allegations and a GOP senator, his former father-in-law, said Sunday he is unfit to serve.

Allegations against Rep. Max Miller, a White House advisor during President Trump’s first term who is endorsed by Trump, have been public for years but recently have drawn increased media scrutiny amid an escalating legal back-and-forth with his former spouse, who is the daughter of U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio). That has Democrats sensing Miller could be vulnerable in a district he won two years ago with a little more than 51% of the vote.

The threat to Miller’s candidacy heightened significantly Sunday, as Moreno said his former son-in-law should not be serving in the House and should “seek professional help,” while Miller defended himself against the allegations in a live video on social media.

Miller says he won’t drop out

Moreno, who had been publicly restrained in recent months as the custody dispute between Miller and his daughter Emily played out, said in a lengthy post: “If there are any basic standards of character required to hold elected office, Max Miller fails them. He should not serve in the House of Representatives.”

Moreno wrote that Miller “needs serious psychological help. He is a danger to my daughter, and I hold my breath every minute he has custody of my granddaughter.”

Miller said Sunday that he will remain in his race for reelection before a Wednesday deadline to replace him.

“I’m not dropping out of this race and I’ll win in November,” he said.

Emily Moreno has said that Miller scalded, hit and threatened her while they were married. Miller denied those allegations in the video, as he has in the past.

“It’s incredibly upsetting,” Miller said as he went through a list of the allegations.

Miller also said he had nothing to do with a broken collarbone on their 2-year-old daughter that led Emily Moreno to contact authorities. The pair, who were married in 2022 and finalized their divorce last year, have presented different versions of how the injury occurred, according to court filings and police reports detailed in the magazine Mother Jones that first revealed the child’s injury.

Miller accompanied his announcement with the release of a cache of investigative and court documents related to the custody dispute.

A spokesperson for Emily Moreno, Stefan Mychajliw, said Sunday that the video was “shameful.”

“No loving parent would have ever used their daughter as a PR pawn to save their own political career,” Mychajliw said. “Miller can lie and spin on X, but he cannot do so under oath in a court of law. We are confident that justice will prevail in court.”

Republican reaction

Sen. Moreno’s statement prompted some hand-wringing behind the scenes in his home state, where Trump-endorsed candidates like Miller typically win with ease. The White House did not respond to a request for comment Sunday.

Miller’s Democratic opponent, Brian Poindexter, said no one facing such accusations “belongs in the halls of power.”

State Rep. Mike Dovilla, a U.S. Navy veteran and former presidential appointee to the Office of Personnel Management, and Kevin Coughlin, a former state senator and representative who ran for the U.S. House in 2024 and 2026, were among Republicans whose names were being floated should Miller drop out, according to a high-ranking Republican who discussed the sensitive subject on condition of anonymity.

Democrats have called on Miller to resign, requested a congressional ethics investigation and suggested more help could be directed in the fall toward Poindexter, a union ironworker.

Republicans generally had remained in Miller’s corner until now, saying he has delivered for his district and is electable in November.

Republican Gov. Mike DeWine told Ohio’s Capital Journal that the accusations were troubling and “very serious” but that Miller’s fate should be up to voters.

The tension comes as Republicans are defending their narrow majority in the House in the November races.

Terry Casey, a longtime Republican consultant in Ohio, said Miller remains in a strong position to win the Republican-leaning district, which stretches south from Cleveland and was won decisively by Trump two years ago.

That is unless Poindexter, who has been endorsed by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), can attract money significant enough to step up his advertising in the 7th Congressional District’s media markets.

“Unless serious people are willing to put in serious money, I’d say beginning around $2 million, it’s all nothing but lip exercises,” Casey said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee declined to discuss whether it would match any influx of Democratic cash. Miller has significantly outraised Poindexter, although the Democrat’s campaign said it has received a surge in social media followers in recent weeks.

Democrats call for ethics probe

Last week, U.S. Rep. Shontel Brown, a Cleveland Democrat, said it “would be wise” for Miller to resign. The House Democratic Women’s Caucus called for an ethics investigation.

“The recent reports of domestic violence and child abuse against Representative Max Miller are deeply disturbing, and Congress can’t ignore them,” Democratic Reps. Teresa Leger Fernández of New Mexico, Emilia Sykes of Ohio and Hillary Scholten of Michigan wrote in their letter. “Allegations of violence against women and children have to be met with the utmost seriousness.”

Other allegations

Miller has denied all allegations of abuse. Last spring, his spokesperson provided documentation to the Associated Press that showed several allegations that he had abused his daughter had been investigated by the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services and were deemed unsubstantiated. He has sued Emily Moreno for defamation.

The couple’s dispute escalated last week.

On Thursday, lawyers for Emily Moreno asked a judge for a temporary restraining order barring Miller from contact with her attorney, Andrew Zashin. The filing alleges that Miller shouted insults at Zashin and goaded him to “Come at me!” outside a court hearing last May, then grabbed Zashin during a different proceeding on Tuesday.

The court filing quotes Miller’s lawyer as saying his client “just can’t control himself.” The attorney did not return a call seeking comment.

Last month, Miller’s ex-girlfriend, former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, filed a lawsuit against him. She accused Miller of violating terms of a confidential settlement agreement they struck to resolve his 2021 lawsuit against her.

That lawsuit alleged Grisham defamed him in her book and in a Washington Post op-ed when she said a former White House staffer — later identified as Miller — physically abused her while they were dating. While the book is vague on the specific allegations, Politico reported at the time that Grisham and Miller’s relationship ended “when he pushed her against a wall and slapped her in the face in his Washington apartment after she accused him of cheating on her.”

Grisham alleged in the new lawsuit filed July 7 that Miller dragged her name into his dispute with Moreno and violated their agreement not to disparage each other.

Democrat’s strategy

For Poindexter, t the accusations against Miller provide a possible path to an upset in November if some conservative-leaning voters opt for him or enough Republican voters are turned off by the domestic abuse allegations and stay home.

“These are serious allegations and deserve the full attention of law enforcement,” Poindexter said in a statement. “If all the allegations against Congressman Miller prove to be true, Max Miller should be in jail, not worried about retaining a seat in Congress.”

Jim Trakas, a former state lawmaker and GOP party chair in northeast Ohio, said Miller is not helped by the fresh developments so close to the election.

“It’s a difficult year for any incumbent,” he said. “Now you have to spend time on this when you want to focus on the main event, which is the pocketbook issues.”

Smyth, Jalonick and Catalini write for the Associated Press.

In a settlement announced this week, Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) has agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to a former security guard at Los Angeles International Airport who alleged that the congressman assaulted her at a security checkpoint in 2000.

Kennedy, the son of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), will personally pay part of settlement to Della Patton of Los Angeles. His insurance company will pay the remainder.

“He felt it was his responsibility to own up and take responsibility for this incident,” said Jack McConnell, Kennedy’s lawyer. “He’s saying that this is an unfortunate incident, and that he’s sorry it happened.”

Patton filed suit in Torrance Superior Court, claiming that Kennedy “intentionally battered” her “with his hands and body” on March 26, 2000, in an attempt to force his way past her at a Terminal 7 security checkpoint at LAX.

The incident, which was captured on tape by two security cameras, started when Kennedy tried to put oversized luggage through an X-ray machine, said Patton’s attorney, George Mallory. Patton and another screener informed him that he would have to check his bag.

Kennedy pulled out his wallet and showed Patton his identification. When she refused to let him pass, Kennedy “shoved her and she struck the magnetometer,” Mallory said.

After the altercation, Patton suffered a “frozen shoulder” and had arthroscopic surgery for “loose bodies” in her left shoulder, Mallory said.

Kennedy, who eventually checked his bag on a flight to Boston, had previously apologized to Patton and offered $25,000, which she rejected.

A producer sued Netflix on Wednesday, alleging the streamer lost an unreleased copy of a new Nicolas Cage movie and seeking damages of at least $105 million.

Producer Simon Afram invested more than $45 million of his own money making “Fortitude,” a film that takes place during World War II and features actors including Cage, Sir Ben Kingsley and Ron Perlman, according to the lawsuit. The movie, described as “Ocean’s Eleven” meets “Inglourious Basterds,” is based on Operation Fortitude, an effort during World War II in which double agents set a trap for Adolf Hitler and his armies. The movie has not yet been released and is seeking buyers.

“Fortitude” had its own mystery last month when the drive that once held the movie went missing.

On June 15, Daniel Haido, an associate producer of “Fortitude,” dropped off an unencrypted copy of the movie for Netflix to view and instructed the staff to delete the files after the screening. Haido also told Netflix to notify him when the drive was ready for pick up, but Netflix was unresponsive to several efforts to pick up the drive, the lawsuit said. On June 25, Netflix notified Haido that the drive had been stolen.

“Unfortunately, someone stole a good amount of drives from our office desks this past week,” Sean Berney, a director for original film at Netflix, wrote in a June 25 email, according to the lawsuit. “We’ve been working through this with our security teams to no luck.”

Berney in his email offered to reimburse Afram’s company for the missing drive or create a new digital cinema package, according to the lawsuit.

But Afram in his lawsuit said the damage was much greater than that. He is seeking economic damages of at least $105 million, along with other costs.

“By losing control of the Film, Netflix destroyed that exclusivity and materially, if not completely, impaired the Film’s marketability,” his lawsuit said. “It is not fathomable that a sophisticated buyer would invest tens of millions of dollars to acquire the Film — and tens of millions more to market it — while facing the constant risk that it could appear online to be viewed widely for free at any time.”

Netflix in a statement said it is conducting an investigation and is offering to monitor piracy sites for any unauthorized distribution or sale of the film. The streamer accused Afram’s law firm of “hostile attempts to extort money from Netflix over this situation — including immediately demanding $165 million for the film rather than work with us in good faith.”

“Netflix disputes any claim that it bears the risk of loss for a film delivered without the proper industry-standard safeguards,” the company said in a statement. “While we do not own the rights to ‘Fortitude,’ we take content security seriously and have taken extra measures to support the filmmaker and his team.”

Akerman LLP, one of the firms representing Afram in his lawsuit, declined to comment, citing pending litigation. Johnson & Johnson LLP did not immediately return a request for comment.

Regarding Netflix’s statement, a spokesman for Afram said, “Our lawsuit speaks for itself.”

MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin voters who have already returned their absentee ballots for the state’s primary are not allowed to void those and request a new one, a judge ruled Wednesday.

The ruling deals a blow to Democrats, who filed a lawsuit seeking to give voters a do-over because of a chaotic party primary in the governor’s race.

The ruling is almost certain to be appealed with voting already underway in the state’s primary for governor. It creates another level of uncertainty in the waning days of a primary season that saw Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, who had been seen as a Democratic front-runner, drop out on July 17. A day later, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who had bowed out on July 8, reentered the race.

Rodriguez’s name remains on the ballot, along with former state economic development director Missy Hughes, who dropped out in June.

More than 117,000 absentee ballots had been returned by Wednesday. Democrats were concerned that many of those might have been cast for Rodriguez.

The attorney for voters who filed the lawsuit with support from the Wisconsin Democratic Party argued in a Tuesday hearing that state law allows voters who have submitted absentee ballots to change their mind before those ballots are counted on election day.

“Voters across Wisconsin will be disenfranchised” if not allowed to do that, attorney Eduardo Castro argued before Dane County Circuit Judge David Conway.

The bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission had voted on July 9 to distribute guidance to clerks saying absentee voters cannot change their ballot after it has been returned. The rarely used process is known as ballot spoiling.

But Conway on Wednesday ruled that “the unambiguous language of the statute does not allow a voter to spoil an absentee ballot after it is returned.” He said the guidance issued by the elections commission to the roughly 2,000 clerks who run elections at the local level was consistent with the law.

The judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order sought by Democrats. They had wanted the judge to order the state elections commission to rescind its guidance.

Spokespeople for the Wisconsin Democratic Party and the state elections commission did not immediately return messages seeking comment on the ruling.

Ballot spoiling was the subject of a 2022 lawsuit brought by a Republican group. In that case, a Waukesha County judge agreed that the elections commission must rescind its guidance that allowed voters to cast a second ballot. But the state appeals court earlier this year vacated that ruling on technical grounds and did not rule on the merits.

The winner of the Democratic primary will advance to November’s general election, most likely against Republican U.S. Rep. Thomas P. Tiffany, who has only token opposition in his party’s primary. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers is not seeking a third term.

Democrats hope to keep the governor’s office and flip both chambers of the Legislature to gain full control of state government for the first time since 2010.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Backers of a November ballot measure that would require Californians to verify their identity when voting sued state officials on Monday, alleging bias in how the ballot’s summary is written.

A group led by California State Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) allege in a 10-page lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court that Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta violated election laws that require the “impartial” labeling of a measure’s purpose.

DeMaio accused Bonta of trying “to rig the vote” against the measure with “a false title claiming it prohibits citizens from voting” in California elections.

He also said the measure, which will appear as Proposition 39 on the November ballot, is “a bipartisan solution to Voter ID and is supported by a supermajority of Democratic, independent, and Republican voters.”

“We take our duty to prepare a title and summary and ballot label seriously, and we are confident the court will agree we have faithfully executed that duty here,” said a spokesperson for Bonta.

Proposition 39 would require voters to present government-issued identification, such as a state driver’s license, every time they vote in person.

Voters who use mail-in ballots — by far the most popular method of voting in California — would be required to write a four-digit number, essentially a PIN, on their ballot envelopes. The PIN would come from ID such as a driver’s license or could be generated from the county.

The measure also requires that the secretary of state and county elections officials to maintain accurate voter registration lists, verify citizenship, and report annually the percentage of each county’s voter roll that have been citizenship-verified.

Under current law, Californians are required to provide identification when registering to vote and must swear under penalty of perjury, a felony, that they are eligible to vote and are U.S. citizens.

They are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail.

The lawsuit, filed by Californians for Voter ID, Yes on 39 and Donald DiCostanzo, a registered voter who lives Orange County, argues that the attorney general office’s summary “is not a true and impartial statement of the measure’s purpose” and violates California Elections Code 9051, which requires neutrality.

The suit claims the language used for the summary during the signature-gathering process — a required step to get the measure on the ballot — was “neutral” and named both of the measure’s chief purposes.

The final language omits the measure’s mandate to maintain accurate voter rolls and and verify citizenship, and describes the measure in “prohibitive terms,” according to the suit.

The original language said the measure “establishes additional voters identification and citizenship verification requirements.”

“This measure would amend the California Constitution to further require that voters present government-issued identification at the polls or the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail; the State provide voter identification cards on request; and elections officials annually report percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship they have verified.”

The summary language now states that the measure: “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”

“Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification.”

Election law expert Fred Woocher said that the law allows the ballot measure summary to be different than the description of the measure in circulation.

UCLA law professor Rick Hasen declined to weigh in on the arguments in the lawsuit, but said that “it’s common practice for the AG to write things in ways that that align with the political interests of the Attorney General.”

Hasen previously called the ballot measure a “disaster,” writing in a blog post that its requirements are vague and it would be costly and difficult for agencies to verify citizenship.

Proponents of an initiative to repeal gas tax increases in California sued then-Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, now a candidate for governor, in 2017 over a state-drafted title and summary which they argued was misleading and negative.

A judge sided with proponents, but an appellate court later rule in Becerra’s favor.

The fate of hundreds of clean energy projects hangs in the balance after court documents revealed that the Trump administration targeted California and other blue states solely for political reasons when it slashed funding for the initiatives last year.

Large companies, startups, utilities, universities and other nonprofits were among those that lost out on $7.6 billion in clean energy funding terminated by the White House in October. They include the University of California, the California Energy Commission, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and California’s nascent hydrogen hub, the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems, or ARCHES.

At the time, Trump administration officials said the grants were terminated because they “did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs, were not economically viable, and would not provide a positive return on investment of taxpayer dollars.”

But in court documents filed as part of a lawsuit challenging the cuts, the Department of Energy states the selection of grants was “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State.”

It also concedes that neither the inclusion of ARCHES, nor any other grants in the October tranche, was “based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor.”

California and the 15 other states that lost funding did not vote for Trump in the 2024 election.

Legal experts said such an action is unheard of.

“The government has stipulated that grants were cut off to states that voted against Trump. As far as I know, this blatant politics in cutting off grants is unprecedented. It also is illegal,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School and co-counsel in the lawsuit.

More projects were cut in California than any other state, about 79 out of nearly 300. They were all for clean energy, many to address climate change, and include investments in new battery plants, upgrades for the electrical grid and initiatives to take carbon out of the air. About $1.2 billion was slated for the hydrogen hub.

Money was also to go to West Biofuels in Woodland, CALSTART in Pasadena, Charge Bliss in Aliso Viejo, Rejoule in Signal Hill, Southern California Edison, the Imperial Irrigation District and Aera Federal LLC, among many others.

The lawsuit was brought by a group of faculty members and researchers at UC Berkeley and UC San Francisco, who were among those to lose research grants. A separate lawsuit was filed by California and a coalition of 13 other states in February.

The acknowledgment of political motivation is “startling — and it is particularly so when the administration has had these larger narratives about how they’re canceling grants that are about waste, fraud and abuse,” said Claudia Polsky, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at UC Berkeley and initiating counsel in the university case. “If they want to favor oil, coal and nuclear, and disfavor clean energy innovation, that’s their prerogative as the executive. But here we have stipulations saying that none of those things were true for these staggeringly consequential DOE grants.”

The lawsuit alleges that the government’s actions violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which prevents arbitrary discrimination, as well as the 1st Amendment in that it is targeting researchers for how their state voted.

“None of it was about a change in priorities,” Polsky said, noting that similar grants in red states were not canceled. “None of it was about fiscal stringency. None of it was about anything except punishing people who didn’t vote for Trump.”

Judge Rita F. Lin could order the federal funding to be reinstated, and indeed has already done so through some temporary preliminary injunctions. But many of the grantees are now in “purgatory” as the case proceeds toward a final ruling, Polsky said.

Many of the projects are complex, multi-year efforts that involve a hodgepodge of agencies, experts and partnerships, such as ARCHES, the state’s billion-dollar hydrogen hub awarded under President Biden. Officials with ARCHES could not immediately be reached for comment.

News of the funding cuts first broke last fall in a post on X from Russell Vought, director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

“Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being canceled,” Vought wrote. “The projects are in the following states: CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA.”

At a House hearing in June, however, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said decisions were not made based on politics.

The Energy Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Secretary Wright looked me in the eye, under oath, insisting the decision to cancel California’s clean energy projects was ‘not political,’” Sen. Alex Padilla said in a statement to The Times on Monday. “The Administration’s own court filings tell a different story. These decisions jeopardize good-paying jobs, undermine American energy innovation, and drive up costs.”

Padilla is among 30 California lawmakers, including Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San José), who separately challenged the funding cuts as unlawful — writing in an October letter to the Energy Department’s independent Office of the Inspector General that the decision targeted blue states “for their perceived lack of support for President Trump.” The office subsequently launched an investigation into the claims.

“Any Trump official who lied and told the nation these clean energy grant cancellations had nothing to do with politics should resign,” Schiff said in a post on X after the latest court filings were revealed. “As the administration has now been forced to concede — these cancellations had everything to do with politics. Of the worst kind.”

A final ruling is expected in early November.

Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.

July 25 (UPI) — President Donald Trump‘s latest round of sweeping tariffs was hit with a lawsuit on Friday, just hours after going into effect.

Two small businesses challenged the newest levies, which apply 10% to 12.5% tariffs to more than 80 countries, justified under a provision to prevent goods made with forced labor from being imported.

The lawsuit was filed by a spice company in New York, Burlap and Barrel, and a California watch store, Collective Horology.

They are represented by the Liberty Justice Center, a legal nonprofit that won a Supreme Court case against the president’s previous round of tariffs.

Since the loss in court earlier this year, Trump has explored other legal authorities to support his tariffs and bypass congressional approval.

“Forced labor is morally indefensible, but an important objective does not give the government permission to ignore the law,” said Sara Albrecht, CEO of the Liberty Justice Center, in a statement. “The administration allowed one global tariff to expire and immediately replaced it with another under a different statute. Changing the statute doesn’t change the law. Every tariff authority has limits, and every administration must respect them.”

In the lawsuit, plaintiffs said the U.S. Trade Representative “failed to provide a reasoned, record-based explanation for its determinations.”

“This is the third time the administration has attempted to impose its global tariff policy without following the statutory limits,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, in a statement.

“Section 301 is a targeted, country-specific and practice-specific remedial authority,” Schwab added. “It is not a freestanding authorization to tax substantially all imports from substantially all countries at preestablished rates.”

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.