lawsuit

Officials accuse Trump of ‘unlawful and unconstitutional’ use of National Guard in latest effort to stop deployment.

Illinois has become the latest state to launch legal action in hopes of blocking United States President Donald Trump from deploying the National Guard.

The lawsuit filed on Monday by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and the city of Chicago officials came just hours after a federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked Trump from sending the National Guard to the state’s largest city, Portland.

Trump has sought to expand the use of the US military during his second term, including to aid in domestic immigration and law enforcement. That has come amid a wider effort to portray Democratic-run cities as violence-ridden and lawless.

In a post on X, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker decried Trump’s latest plan, which would involve federalising 300 of the state’s National Guard troops and deploying another 400 from Texas, as “unlawful and unconstitutional”.

Attorney General Raoul said US citizens “should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly for the reason that their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor “.

Since taking office in January, Trump has already deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles in the state of California and the federal district of Washington, DC, and has floated sending troops to at least eight other major cities.

In September, a federal judge ruled the Trump administration ” wilfully ” broke federal law by deploying guard troops to Los Angeles amid protests over immigration raids.

In the Oregon case, Judge Karin Immergut temporarily blocked Trump’s plan to deploy 200 National Guard troops from neighbouring California, saying anti-immigration enforcement protests there “did not pose a danger of rebellion”.

Karin also chided the Trump administration for appearing to disregard an order she had issued just a day earlier.

“Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order?” she said on Sunday. “Why is this appropriate?”

Under US law, the US military cannot be used for domestic law enforcement unless the president deems the situation an insurrection and invokes the insurrection act. However, the National Guard can be used in a support capacity for federal law enforcement agents in some instances.

Despite the legal setbacks, Trump has remained defiant.

Speaking to US military commanders last week, Trump referred to “civil disturbances” as the “enemy within”. He further vowed to straighten out US cities “one by one”.

In one particularly remarkable statement, Trump said: “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military”.

Beyond the National Guard, the Trump administration has surged federal law enforcement and immigration agents to cities across the country.

In Chicago, protesters have frequently rallied near an immigration facility outside of the city, where they arrested 13 people on Friday.

On Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security said that federal agents shot a woman in Chicago’s southwest.

A department statement said the shooting happened after Border Patrol agents patrolling the area “were rammed by vehicles and boxed in by 10 cars”. The woman, who survived the shooting, was taken into federal custody soon afterwards .

Paramount has acquired The Free Press, a four-year-old digital news platform, and will make its co-founder Bari Weiss editor-in-chief of CBS News, the company announced Monday.

The official announcement came after months of speculation on the deal and Weiss’ high profile role within the news division. Weiss, 41, will report to Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison, who personally courted the former New York Times journalist.

“We are thrilled to welcome Bari and The Free Press to Paramount and CBS News. Bari is a proven champion of independent, principled journalism, and I am confident her entrepreneurial drive and editorial vision will invigorate CBS News,” Ellison said in a statement. “This move is part of Paramount’s bigger vision to modernize content and the way it connects — directly and passionately — to audiences around the world.”

Paramount said Weiss will “shape editorial policies, champion core values across platforms and lead innovation in how the organization reports and delivers the news.”

The union of The Free Press and CBS News will be one of the most closely watched lab experiments in the modern media era. Weiss has no experience in television or running an editorial operation on the scale of CBS News, which has more than 1,000 employees.

Paramount is paying around $150 million in cash and stock for The Free Press, a feisty, upstart operation that generated attention through opinion pieces and podcasts with a strong point of view. Its favorite targets are the excesses of progressive left and purveyors of so-called “woke” policies.

CBS News is a traditional mass appeal network TV operation with a proud legacy of journalistic excellence and the home of popular franchises “60 Minutes” and “CBS Sunday Morning.” But the division has struggled to deal with the shifts in audience habits brought about by streaming video and social media.

Weiss is a provocateur who famously resigned from her high profile role in the opinion section of the New York Times in 2020, citing bullying by her colleagues and a hostile work environment as the reasons.

Weiss acknowledged the division’s legacy in a note sent to CBS News staffers after her appointment was announced.

“Growing up, CBS was a deep family tradition,” Weiss said. “Whenever i hear the tick, tick, tick or that trumpet fanfare, it sends me right back to our den in Pittsburgh. The opportunity to build on that legacy — and to renew it in an era that so desperately needs it — is an extraordinary privilege.”

Weiss also ascends at a time when Trump has threatened news operations with lawsuits and regulatory action, such as pulling station TV licenses over what he believes is unfair criticism of him and his administration. Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle a Trump lawsuit making the dubious claim that a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris was deceptively edited to aid her 2024 presidential election campaign against him.

CBS News has never had an executive with the title editor-in-chief before naming Weiss to the role. It still has a president — Tom Cibrowski — a former ABC News executive hired earlier this year who will remain in his role and continue to report to to Paramount TV Media President George Cheeks.

In her note, Weiss told her staffers her goal in the coming weeks is to learn “what’s working and what isn’t, and your thoughts on how we can make CBS News the most trusted news organization in America and the world. I’ll approach it the way any reporter would — with an open mind, a fresh notebook, and an urgent deadline.”

The Free Press, which has around 170,000 paid subscribers, will continue as its own independent brand, with its own podcasts and live events business.

The lawsuit claims Trump does not have the authority to override the law that created the H-1B visa programme.

A coalition of unions, employers and religious groups has filed a lawsuit seeking to block United States President Donald Trump’s bid to impose a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas for high-skilled foreign workers.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco on Friday is the first to challenge Trump’s proclamation issued last month announcing the fee.

The United Auto Workers union, American Association of University Professors and other plaintiffs say Trump’s power to restrict the entry of certain foreign nationals does not allow him to override the law that created the H-1B visa programme.

The programme allows US employers to hire foreign workers in speciality fields, and technology companies in particular rely heavily on workers who receive H-1B visas.

Critics of H-1Bs and other work visa programmes say they are often used to replace American workers with cheaper foreign labour. But business groups and major companies have said H-1Bs are a critical means to address a shortage of qualified American workers.

Employers who sponsor H-1B workers currently typically pay between $2,000 and $5,000 in fees, depending on the size of the company and other factors.

Trump’s order bars new H-1B recipients from entering the US unless the employer sponsoring their visa has made an additional $100,000 payment. The administration has said the order does not apply to people who already hold H-1B visas or those who submitted applications before September 21.

Trump in his unprecedented order invoked his power under federal immigration law to restrict the entry of certain foreign nationals that would be detrimental to the interests of the US.

He said that high numbers of lower-wage workers in the H-1B programme have undercut its integrity and that the programme threatens national security, including by discouraging Americans from pursuing careers in science and technology. He said the “large-scale replacement of American workers” through the H-1B programme threatens the country’s economic and national security.

‘Pay to play’

The plaintiffs argue that Trump has no authority to alter a comprehensive statutory scheme governing the visa programme and cannot, under the US Constitution, unilaterally impose fees, taxes or other mechanisms to generate revenue for the US, saying that power is reserved for Congress.

“The Proclamation transforms the H-1B program into one where employers must either ‘pay to play’ or seek a ‘national interest’ exemption, which will be doled out at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, a system that opens the door to selective enforcement and corruption,” the lawsuit said.

The groups argue that agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security’s US Citizenship and Immigration Services and US Department of State, likewise adopted new policies to implement Trump’s proclamation without following necessary rulemaking processes, and without considering how “extorting exorbitant fees will stifle innovation”.

The H-1B programme offers 65,000 visas annually to employers bringing in temporary foreign workers in specialised fields, with another 20,000 visas for workers with advanced degrees. The visas are approved for a period of three to six years.

India was by far the largest beneficiary of H-1B visas last year, accounting for 71 percent of approved visas, while China was a distant second at 11.7 percent, according to government data.

A US judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) of providing funding that enabled Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 cross-border raid on Israel, The New York Times reported, Anadolu reports.

Judge Analisa Torres of the Federal District Court in Manhattan ruled that the UN agency is protected by immunity as part of the United Nations, the Times said on Thursday.

According to the report, the suit, filed on behalf of roughly 100 Israeli plaintiffs, including survivors of the attack, the estates of those killed, and at least one hostage, alleged that the UNRWA allowed Palestinian resistance group Hamas to divert funds for its own use.

The Trump administration argued in April that the UN agency and certain officials named in the suit, including Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini, should not enjoy immunity. In a letter to the court, the Justice Department claimed the agency and its officers “must answer these allegations in American courts.”

Last year, the previous Joe Biden administration maintained in court papers that the agency is immune from lawsuits. The judge’s ruling sided with that view.

The plaintiffs claimed UNRWA paid local employees in cash and required them to convert it through Hamas-affiliated money changers, generating millions of dollars in additional revenue for the group.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday, nor did a spokeswoman for the agency, the report said.

READ: Over 417,000 displaced from northern Gaza since August: UN

Pushing back on unsubstantiated allegations

The agency has faced repeated allegations by Israel of links between its staff and “militant groups,” claims it has consistently denied, citing a lack of evidence.

Citing the allegations, though they were not substantiated, some Western politicians and countries called for defunding the UNRWA, despite the vital work it has done for decades for Palestinian refugees.

For the claims, Israel provided a list of 100 alleged “militants” but gave no substantiation despite the UNRWA’s repeated requests.

“Agency has requested on numerous occasions for cooperation from the Government of Israel by providing information and evidence to substantiate the accusations made against UNRWA,” the agency said in a document responding to Israel’s allegations.

“To date, UNRWA has not received any response, nor has the Government of Israel shared any evidence.”

Last year, at the request of the UN secretary-general, an independent investigation was launched by the highest investigative body in the United Nations, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS).

In the document, titled “Facts Versus Claims,” the UNRWA said the OIOS probe found no evidence in one case and insufficient evidence in nine others.

In the remaining nine cases, “the evidence obtained by OIOS – if authenticated and corroborated – might indicate that the staff members may have been involved, and their employment was terminated in the interest of UNRWA,” the document said.

READ: UN says Israel attack on Sumud Flotilla deepens Gaza blockade

Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner are taking legal action to snuff out accusations that they are the subjects of a federal criminal racketeering investigation — claims publicized by the former’s ex-boyfriend Ray J.

Attorneys for the “Kardashians” reality stars and businesswomen sued the “One Wish” singer Wednesday for defamation and false light publicity. The 13-page complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, stems from numerous comments Ray J made this year about his old flame and her family in a TMZ documentary and on a Twitch livestream.

“Ray J’s public statements are blatantly false,” the lawsuit says. “No such federal investigation exists; no law enforcement agency has initiated any criminal proceedings or investigations related to racketeering charges against Ms. Kardashian or Ms. Jenner; and no credible evidence whatsoever supports these inflammatory allegations.”

Neither representatives for the “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” alumnae nor Ray J (born Ray Norwood Jr.) immediately responded to requests for comment.

The complaint alleges that Ray J — younger brother to singer-actor Brandy — first publicly suggested the mother-daughter duo’s involvement in a RICO investigation in May 2025, when he appeared in the TMZ documentary “United States vs. Sean Combs: Inside the Diddy Trial.” The TMZ special chronicled the developments in the rap and alcohol-branding mogul’s high-profile federal sex-trafficking case. The 44-year-old singer linked Combs’ case to his ex-girlfriend and her famous family, stating in the special, “If you told me that the Kardashians was being charged for racketeering, I might believe it,” the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Jenner, 69, and Kardashian, 44, allege Ray J’s comment “was designed to plant the seed in the public mind” that the reality stars are comparable to Combs, who was accused of drugging women, violence against ex-girlfriend Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and orchestrating orgies known as “freakoffs.” “To date, Ray J has not retracted his knowingly false and disparaging statement,” the lawsuit says.

Months after appearing on the TMZ special, Ray J doubled down on his claims during a Twitch livestream with rapper Chrisean Rock in late September. The “Sexy Can I” musician declared last week, “The federal RICO I’m about to drop on Kris and Kim is about to be crazy,” according to court documents. During the livestream Ray J also allegedly said “the feds is coming, there’s nothing I can do about it” and claimed the stars’ supposed RICO case is “worse than Diddy[‘s].”

“I’m talking about, I’m on the news every day. I’m gonna say a lot of s—,” he said about the scale of the RICO case, the complaint says.

Elsewhere in the livestream, he urged his followers: “Anybody that is cool with Kim, they need to tell her now, the rain is coming, the feds is coming.”

Infamously, Kardashian and Ray J were an item in the early 2000s. Though they broke up in 2006, their sex tape was leaked in 2007, the same year “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” premiered on E!

Attorneys for Jenner and Kardashian cast Ray J’s accusations as his latest attempts to stay relevant. The lawsuit alleges he has a history of “making false, sensationalized claims about high-profile individuals” to gain attention, citing an online incident with rapper Sexxy Red. Earlier this year, Ray J hinted he got intimate with the “Sticky” rapper. He apologized for the claim and clarified that they just sat near each other on the same flight. “I went out of control and I said that I slept with Sexxy Red,” he said.

The lawsuit says Jenner and Kardashian — who recently completed her legal training — “suffered reputational harm” that has taken and will continue to take a professional toll. They are seeking a jury trial and an unspecified amount in damages exceeding $35,000.

As news of the lawsuit spread Wednesday, Ray J seemingly stood firm in his accusations. In a video shared to his Instagram story Wednesday, he asserted, “I’m not about to be silenced.” He also said he spoke with Jenner-Kardashian attorney Alex Spiro, who allegedly asked him “crazy questions,” including whether he spoke to “feds.”

“Honestly, like, y’all should be super scared because I’m not backing down. I’m tired of it,” Ray J continued. “The rain is coming, there’s nothing you can do about it.”

In another Instagram story shared Wednesday evening, he announced to followers that he would be going live on Twitch at 2 a.m., “that’s 5 o’clock New York Time, perfect time for ‘The Breakfast Club’ to be stalking my page and see what I’m gonna say.”

Every day, some of L.A.’s poorest residents line up outside the county benefits office in South Central, weaving their way through a swarm of salesmen hawking deals that feel too good to be true.

Would you like $15 for a quick blood pressure exam? A free phone? Perhaps, $2 for a COVID swab?

How about cash to sign up to sue L.A. County for sexual abuse at juvenile halls?

Over the last year, a Times investigation found a practice of paying for plaintiffs among a nebulous network of vendors, who usher people desperate for cash toward a law firm that could profit significantly from their business.

The Times spent two weeks outside the county social services office in South Central Los Angeles, where a constant flow of people applied for food stamps and cash aid, and spoke with seven people who said they were paid there within the last year to sue the county for sex abuse.

Most said they were abused inside the county’s juvenile halls, but had not planned to sue until they were flagged down on the sidewalk and offered cash. Two people said they were told to fabricate stories of abuse.

All the claims involving alleged payments were filed by Downtown LA Law Group, a pivotal player in the county’s recent $4-billion settlement for sex abuse inside its juvenile halls and foster homes — the largest such payout in U.S. history. Of the roughly 11,000 plaintiffs in the settlement, The Times found that nearly one-fourth were represented by the firm.

Marlon Bland, 31, said he got $200 — half in cash outside the county’s social services office and the other half when he went to meet with lawyers from Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA. The receptionist there handed him a $100 check, he said. DTLA sued the county on his behalf Aug. 23, 2024.

Kevin Richardson, 59, whose suit was filed by DTLA on Oct. 15, said he got $50 outside the social services office.

Quantavia Smith, 38, whose suit was filed by DTLA on April 29, said a vendor drove her to the office of a downtown law firm and then gave her $200.

The Times could not reach the vendors for the story, and DTLA attorneys declined to be interviewed. The law firm strongly denied paying people to sue and said no representative of the firm had been authorized to make payments.

“We do not pay our clients to file lawsuits, and we strongly oppose such actions,” the law firm said. “If we ever became aware that anyone associated with us, in any capacity, did such a thing — we would end our relationship with them immediately. We want justice for real victims.”

California law bans a practice known as capping, in which non-attorneys directly solicit or procure clients to sign up for lawsuits with a law firm.

DTLA did not answer questions about how the people who said they were paid to sue ended up with the law firm.

The firm’s statement said all their cases go through an intense review process “that tests for truthfulness and has many checks and balances.”

“As a result of this stringent quality control, we have rejected clients whose cases did not meet our criteria,” the firm said. “We are confident that the claims we have filed are valid and will withstand judicial scrutiny.”

For the last year, a mystery has vexed veteran sex abuse attorneys: How did a law firm best known for representing victims of auto accidents attract so many sex abuse plaintiffs in less than two years?

According to a Times analysis of court records, DTLA has amassed more than 2,700 people to sue L.A. County, more than nearly any other law firm involved in the settlement. The firm will get nearly half the payout for each client, per retainer agreements viewed by The Times.

Two legal experts warned, speaking generally, that offering people cash to sue, particularly those who are financially on the brink, could invite fraud into the historic sex abuse settlement.

“Of course, it makes the chance of fraudulent claims more likely,” said Richard Zitrin, a legal ethics professor at UC Law SF.

Some plaintiffs say they were explicitly told to make up claims.

“They tell you what to say,” said Carlshawn Stovall, 43, who said he was given about $20 by a vendor outside the benefits office to sue. “You’re supposed to make it up.”

Stovall said he gave the vendor his cellphone number and was told a lawyer would call him soon and ask him a few questions: What facility were you in? What year? How were you abused?

The vendor handed him a postcard-sized “script” of how to respond, he said. He didn’t need to worry about getting fact-checked, the vendor told him, as the county had no records of who was in its facilities decades ago. It seemed “a good way to get some quick money,” he said.

By the time the call came, he said, he’d lost the script, so he ad-libbed that probation officers watched him masturbate in the shower. The call, he said, lasted less than ten minutes and he never heard from them again.

On Nov. 7, DTLA filed a lawsuit on his behalf alleging he was “sexually harassed and abused” by staff in Central Juvenile Hall. Stovall said he was never in juvenile hall — much less abused there.

“I was a good kid,” he said, laughing.

Juan Fajardo said he used to sell phones next to the lawsuit vendors. He said he would watch a man pull up outside the social services office in a Tesla most Fridays and hand the recruiters cash, which they would dole out the following week to potential plaintiffs. The recruiters told him they were paid per person they signed up, he said.

“‘Just make up a story, say you got touched, here’s $50,’” Fajardo recalled the recruiters who set up shop next to him saying. “They’ll give it to you and then say, ‘Hey you never know, you might even get a lawsuit.’”

One recruiter also sold phones, he recounted. When someone wanted to get a phone, he said, he’d watch the recruiter first take a call on the new phone and make up a story of abuse under the customer’s name. The recruiter would then hand the customer their new phone and pocket the $50 for himself, Fajardo said.

After a few months of watching, Fajardo said, he decided to make up a story, too. He didn’t want to give his real name, so he gave the recruiter the name of a family member and a fake birthday. He said he took $50 and later got a call from a law firm. Ten minutes after the call, he said, he was told his case had been accepted.

DTLA filed the lawsuit under the family’s member name on Aug. 28, 2024. Fajardo said he doesn’t feel right trying to collect the money.

“I said something like, ‘They videotaped us while we’re in the showers, touching us while they pat us down,’” he recounted. “That’s what everyone was saying. I was like, ‘I’ll just use that instead of trying to make up a whole different lie.’”

Most plaintiffs The Times spoke with only knew the first names of the vendors, which some referred to as “recruiters” for the law firm, and said they hadn’t seen them for a few months.

They would usually hang around the people offering free phones right next to the entrance to the county building, according to some who said they were paid.

“It’s been three different people that I’ve seen. They come randomly, maybe once or twice a month,” said Oscar Garcia, who sells cigarettes on the sidewalk. “They promise them $50 to sign.”

Like most sexual abuse cases, all of DTLA’s lawsuits that are part of the massive settlement were filed using only the victim’s initials — JOHN DOE A.R., JANE DOE M.P. The Times confirmed the seven people who said they were paid had lawsuits filed by DTLA through sources with access to plaintiffs’ real names and case numbers.

After The Times reached out to DTLA for comment, the firm called two people The Times had spoken with on the record into its office on Sept. 11 and told them to stop speaking with the reporter.

One man, whom The Times is not naming as he later asked to not be included in the story, called The Times the morning of Sept. 11 and said the firm had ordered him a ride from the broken down car he was living out of in South Central to the firm’s office. He said an attorney had warned him that The Times was doing a “smear article” and didn’t want plaintiffs like him receiving any money from the settlement.

Mitchell Langberg, a defamation lawyer retained by the firm, sent The Times a sworn declaration from the man later that day, accusing the reporter of pretending to be a representative of DTLA to lure him into speaking freely.

The man had saved the reporter’s number in his phone as belonging to the “LA TIMES,” had his picture taken by a Times photographer, sent emails to the reporter’s L.A. Times email account and texted asking when the story would run in the paper.

Shortly afterward, some of the DTLA clients interviewed for this story received a text from the firm, they said, warning them against speaking with reporters:

“If you have been contacted, please notify our office immediately,” the text read.

The litigation floodgates opened in 2020 after California passed a law allowing survivors of childhood sexual abuse to sue the perpetrator even though the statute of limitations had passed on their cases.

Since then, law firms have hunted aggressively for lucrative cases, flooding social media with ads and quietly tapping third parties to find former occupants of county-run juvenile halls and foster homes. The effort has met little resistance from L.A. County officials, who say they threw out relevant records long ago.

This spring, the county agreed to pay $4 billion to settle thousands of sex abuse claims dating back to the 1950s without taking depositions or knowing the names of thousands of plaintiffs. Rather, the vetting had been done almost entirely by attorneys who stand to walk away with more than a billion dollars in fees.

It is a lopsided system that, some attorneys concede, risks squandering taxpayer money meant for victims who suffered egregious abuse as children in the county’s custody.

“The whole thing just stinks,” said John Manly, a longtime sex abuse lawyer who served as a lead attorney in the settlements against USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar and USC gynecologist George Tyndall. “It looks to me like a third of these cases are total bull—, and [the county] is paying for no reason.”

As a state lawmaker, Lorena Gonzalez pushed for AB 218, which gave victims a new window to sue over childhood sexual abuse. Gonzalez, now the president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, said she believes plaintiff lawyers have taken advantage of the law change.

(K.C. Alfred / San Diego Union-Tribune)

Manly’s law firm, Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, is one of three prominent law firms that sued the county under the law change, but did not join the settlement.

DTLA was started by two cousins, Daniel Azizi and Farid Yaghoubtil, and their childhood friend Salar Hendizadeh, the partners told commercial real estate company CoStar after expanding in 2023 to a new Banksy-adorned office building downtown. Attorneys focus on the typical cases for most personal injury firms — dog bites, falls and auto accidents.

The firm became the scourge of ride app companies such as Uber, which sued DTLA and another law firm in federal court in July. The ride app giant alleged that the firms had filed a flurry of “fraudulent claims” and colluded with an Encino-based doctor to inflate the cost of plaintiffs’ medical expenses. The lawsuit is ongoing. In an Instagram post, DTLA called it a “calculated attempt by a billion-dollar corporation” to suppress legitimate claims.

In an interview in June before The Times learned of the alleged vendor payments, attorney Andrew Morrow, the lead attorney in nearly all the firm’s sex abuse cases against the county, said DTLA’s success was due to the reputation he had cultivated as “the therapy guy … out in the streets of downtown LA.” Clients called him, he said, because they knew the firm would connect them with a therapist.

“And I said, Well, let me ask you this, do you have a lawsuit? Were you a victim?” Morrow said of the calls. “We were filling a void in the marketplace.”

Some of the DTLA clients The Times interviewed said they spoke with a therapist provided by the firm. Four said they never heard from the firm after the day they signed up for a lawsuit.

Morrow said sexual abuse cases were “a little bit of a new frontier” for him. He had previously specialized in real estate, entertainment and insurance litigation at a firm he founded before switching to DTLA in 2023, according to his old bio.

He is now one of the region’s most prolific filers of sexual abuse cases. His cases, he said, are vetted for fraud through mental health professionals.

“I’m sure there are firms that still have cases like that,” he said. “We don’t because, like I said, ours go to therapy, and our doctors identify that stuff.”

For thousands of sex abuse victims, the law worked as intended.

With the passage of AB 218 in 2020, survivors had until they were 40 rather than 26 to sue their abuser, giving them a chance to get financial compensation for horrors they were far too young to grapple with — much less sue over — as children. Stories of abuse that had been hidden for decades surfaced, as did the names of prolific abusers, some of whom were still working with minors.

But it also put a massive target on the budgets of government entities, which had long ago thrown out records that could be used for a defense. Former state lawmaker Lorena Gonzalez, who spearheaded the law, says she’s been disturbed by how it’s panned out.

“It’s clear that the State Bar and attorneys themselves cannot hold themselves accountable,” said Gonzalez, now the president of the California Federation of Labor Unions. “What they’re doing, I think, to the cities and counties is deplorable.”

Following the law change, firms began amassing thousands of clients to sue the county through social media campaigns promising payouts and privacy.

“You’re going to be a Jane Doe or a John Doe,” Morrow told potential clients in a video posted to the firm’s TikTok page last year. “No one’s ever going to know your name.”

The cases are lucrative for attorneys, many of whom will receive 40% of their clients’ payouts, according to retainer agreements viewed by The Times. That includes New York City-based Slater Slater Schulman, which has roughly 3,700 clients; Boca-Raton-based Herman Law, with about 800 clients; and Los Angeles-based Becker Law Group and McNicholas & McNicholas, for which The Times found a combined 1,100 plaintiffs. Todd Becker, with Becker Law Group, said their fee differs from plaintiff to plaintiff.

DTLA has the highest contingency fee The Times found, requiring 45% of any payout. DTLA said its fee structure is “entirely standard within the industry.” These fees typically range from 33% to 40%, according to the American Bar Assn.

With most retainers on the higher end of the range, some attorneys involved in the settlement estimate $1.5 billion in taxpayer money could easily flow to lawyers — close to what the county Fire Department spends in a year.

As the county prepares to start dispensing money in January, some firms say they’ve started to find a few flaws in their caseload.

Becker Law Group said in a July court filing that four of the firm’s clients recently told the firm they weren’t abused. Patrick McNicholas, who co-counsels cases with the firm, said the lawsuits were weeded out as part of the firm’s vetting process.

Slater Slater Schulman, which has filed more cases than any other law firm, stated in a September filing that client John Doe J.S. “should not have been included.” The firm previously said in a lawsuit that he had been sexually assaulted at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Downey beginning in 2006 when he was 13.

Slater Slater Schulman has found similar problems in its avalanche of sex abuse cases against the Boy Scouts of America. On Sept. 9, retired U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Barbara Houser, who is overseeing the $2.4-billion victim settlement trust, singled out Slater Slater Schulman for a pattern of “irregularities” and “procedural and factual problems” among its plaintiffs. The firm previously said it represented roughly 14,000 victims.

The firm was asked to pay for an “independent third party” to investigate its cases for fraud before going through the trust’s standard vetting process. Clifford Robert, an outside attorney representing the firm in its issues with the Boy Scout cases, said Slater Slater Schulman is “working tirelessly” to address the issues and that justice for survivors is its top priority.

Tammy Rogers, 56, hired the Slater firm in 2022 to sue after a staff member at MacLaren Children’s Center, a county-run children’s facility now infamous for abuse, allegedly molested her when she was about 9. She said she’s grown unnerved by the financial incentive lawyers like hers have in amassing unwieldy numbers of clients.

“You can’t get ahold of them,” she said of her firm, which has filed cases on behalf of hundreds of new plaintiffs since the settlement was finalized. “I called them repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly.”

Tammy Rogers, 56, said a staff member at MacLaren Children’s Center sexually abused her when she was 9, an incident that sent her spiraling toward drugs and tortured relationships with men. She sued the county in 2022.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

County and plaintiff lawyers nailed down the $4-billion figure on Oct. 30. Since then, thousands more plaintiffs have been added.

“[Firms think] ‘there’s a fund out there, and I’m going to do everything in my power to get as much as I can,’” said one attorney suing the county over sex abuse, who declined to be named, fearing professional repercussions.

It’s a fund, critics say, with few safeguards for fake claims.

The cases will be reviewed by retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Louis Meisinger, who mediated similar settlements for the victims of the 2023 Maui wildfires and the 2017 Las Vegas concert mass shooting. Any plaintiff who wants to skip that vetting process can take $150,000 in a lump sum at the start of next year.

Meisinger will distribute the remaining money after reviewing fact sheets from the victims. If Meisinger believes a case is fraudulent, the county can either give the plaintiff $50,000 to resolve it or get it booted from the settlement, meaning it would work its own way through the court system, according to an allocation protocol reviewed by The Times.

Otherwise, the minimum amount a client can get is $100,000, according to the protocol. The most is $3 million, far less than some victims who suffered egregious abuse feel they deserve.

“I spent two years being tortured by some grown ass men. I mean, I even gave them names,” said a man who was granted anonymity to discuss his case. “It seems like, once again, I’m being taken advantage of.”

He said he had hoped to use the money to buy 60 acres of land for a group home that would give orphaned children the joy he says was snuffed out of him before he hit puberty. At age 10, he said, he was raped and forced to perform oral sex on a man at MacLaren Children’s Center. At age 43, he said, he can’t smell Pine-Sol without flashbacks to the supply closet favored by his abusers as a site for their assaults.

Trinidad Pena, 52, said she desperately needs the settlement money to pay for medical care, overdue bills and therapy. At age 12, she said, she was impregnated by a staff member at MacLaren Children’s Center — an assault that has haunted her since the 1980s.

“What kind of rights did I have as a 12-year-old to sign away another human being?” asked Pena, who recalls seeing the baby for seven minutes before the girl was given to a family in Laguna Hills through a closed adoption. “The lawyers are being made millionaires, but we are just going to be able to pay our back taxes.”

The county was never interested in a fight.

Once the deluge of lawsuits started, county lawyers had just one goal: to make the cases go away without the county going bankrupt.

They did not want to risk a trial. Early in negotiations, county lawyers understood they were looking at a number of cases of brutal rape and molestation that could easily make a disgusted jury award the type of budget-busting $135-million verdict that got handed to the Moreno Valley Unified School District in 2023 for the sexual abuse of two students by a middle school teacher. The district hired him despite a past arrest for molesting his foster son, according to the lawsuit.

Attorney John Manly said he believes the county did not do enough vetting of the cases. Manly’s law firm, Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, is one of three prominent law firms that sued the county under the law change, but did not join the $4-billion settlement.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

If there were even 30 cases that appalled the jury as much as that one, the county would risk paying far more than $4 billion. Better, the county lawyers reasoned, to come up with a total sum that wouldn’t drain coffers of the government, which is responsible for the social safety net for the poorest residents, and let someone else divvy it up among the thousands of victims. With a $45-billion budget, they could make $4 billion work if most county agencies trimmed their spending.

Andy Baum, the county’s outside attorney leading the defense effort, told a judge in a June hearing that he viewed it as an “inventory settlement.” There were simply too many cases, the county felt, to fight individually. And so lawyers conducted only basic vetting of the claims — most of which were filed in court with a pseudonym, an unnamed abuser, and a sentence or two about the abuse. They took no depositions, according to multiple lawyers involved in the settlement.

“We have thousands of cases, and we don’t even have the most fundamental information,” Baum said at the hearing.

The county also allowed many cases to become part of the settlement without the paperwork the law requires. Under state law, cases in which the victim is older than 40 must be filed with a certificate from a therapist, who can attest that there is a “reasonable basis” to believe the plaintiff was sexually abused.

DTLA, which specialized in these cases, filed many of its older lawsuits without the certificate, considered by the Legislature as a critical way to prevent fraudulent claims. The county lawyers never protested, explaining in the June court hearing that they wanted to make sure DTLA’s cases were quickly ushered into the nearly finalized settlement.

“We had a gun to our head,” Baum told Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lawrence Riff, who’s overseeing the juvenile hall abuse cases, when pressed by the judge on why he waived the rule.

DTLA said nearly all of its certificates have since been filed, but did not provide numbers on how many remain outstanding.

The paltry defense launched by the county has some rethinking the law that started the deluge.

Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) tried to push through a bill this session intended as a lifeline to entities drowning in sex abuse lawsuits by limiting the window victims would have to sue. He pulled it last month after outcry from victim advocacy groups that said it trampled on the rights of survivors.

Maryland went further after being flooded with sex abuse claims for juvenile facilities following a similar state law change in 2023. This spring, the state capped sex abuse cases against government entities at $400,000 and limited attorneys’ fees to 25% for cases resolved in court.

That’s not happening in California.

“It’s just, in my view, not politically viable,” Laird said.

Some lawmakers who try to change the law have faced brutal pushback by law firms, including Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, which has run ads branding such bills as “predator” protection.

“I don’t see the appetite,” he said.

For L.A. County, the pace of cases remains relentless.

Since the announcement of the $4-billion settlement, James Harris Law, a Seattle-based firm that specializes in mass torts, has been aggressively recruiting clients through social media ads that tell “abused juvies” they can qualify in 30 seconds for up to $1 million.

After The Times entered a reporter’s cellphone number in one of the firm’s ads on Instagram, a representative from the firm’s intake department called more than 38 times.

Harris said his firm runs a “straightforward public awareness campaign” and didn’t believe his ads contained dollar amounts. The sums were removed from the ads after The Times contacted Harris.

The marketing proved fruitful. This summer, months after the county announced the settlement, Baum said, James Harris called him to discuss his brimming inventory: 2,500 new cases.

Baum said the newcomer acknowledged he was “late to the party.”

Sean Greene and Gabrielle LaMarr LeMee contributed to this report.

On Monday, YouTube became the latest media and tech company to settle one of President Trump’s lawsuits.

The Google-owned streamer agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle a lawsuit Trump filed after his account was banned following the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the U.S. Capitol. That brings Trump’s haul from media and tech companies to more than $90 million in the last year.

Some of these suits deal with conflicts the president has experienced with news networks such as ABC and CBS. Others confront the fallout from the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Some of the settlement money will pay for renovations to a presidential library Trump is building on 2.6 acres of waterfront property in Miami. Other funds will go to the nonprofit Trust for the National Mall, with the intention of building a Mar-a-Lago-style ballroom, which is expected to cost $200 million overall.

Here’s a rundown of the payouts:

YouTube: $24.5 million

After the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, YouTube suspended the president’s account on the platform because of Trump’s alleged role in the insurrection. At the time, the company had cited “concerns about the ongoing potential for violence” and violation of its “policies for inciting violence.”

Trump’s lawsuit, filed in 2021 at the U.S. District Court in Northern California, argued the account’s suspension was “censorship.” Before the case was settled, YouTube had already lifted its suspension on Trump in March 2023, in light of the then-upcoming presidential race.

In court documents filed Monday, Alphabet, the parent company of YouTube and Google, did not admit any wrongdoing in the matter. The company did not agree to make any policy or product changes in the deal.

Of the $24.5 million, $22 million is going to Trump, who will contribute the money to the Trust for the National Mall, which is “dedicated to restoring, preserving, and elevating the National Mall” as well as supporting the construction of the White House State Ballroom, according to the filing.

Alphabet will also have to pay an additional $2.5 million to other plaintiffs in the case, including the American Conservative Union and writer Naomi Wolf.

Social media platforms Facebook (now Meta) and Twitter (now X) had suspended Trump’s accounts over Jan. 6, 2021. At the time, Twitter put out a statement, saying that recent tweets from his “account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter” had to be suspended to avoid “the risk of further incitement of violence.”

Mark Zuckerberg of Meta also posted a statement on Facebook after banning Trump’s Meta accounts. He wrote, “We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great.”

In July of that year, Trump sued the companies for “censorship.”

By January 2023, Meta had reinstated Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts, as had X in 2022.

Shortly before Trump was going to take office for his second term, in January 2025, Meta decided to pay the incoming president $25 million to settle the lawsuit. Elon Musk, who had purchased Twitter and renamed it “X” in the interim, agreed to pay $10 million to settle its Trump case.

Paramount Global: $16 million

Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to resolve Trump’s legal salvo against “60 Minutes” over the editing of an interview with his 2024 opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump claimed “60 Minutes” edited an interview with Harris to make her look better and bolster her chances in the election. CBS denied the claims, saying the edits were standard and the case was viewed as frivolous by 1st Amendment experts.

Trump wrote on Truth Social that CBS “did everything possible to illegally elect Kamala, including completely and corruptly changing major answers to Interview questions, but it just didn’t work for them.”

Last May, CBS offered $16 million to settle the civil suit filed in Texas. The lump sum included the president’s legal fees and an agreement that “60 Minutes” will release transcripts of interviews with future presidential candidates.

Less than a month after the settlement, the FCC approved Skydance Media’s acquisition of Paramount, which owns CBS.

Disney: $16 million

Earlier this year, ABC news anchor George Stephanopoulos appeared on the network’s “This Week” news program and asserted that Trump was found liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll. In May 2023, a jury in New York declined to find Trump liable for rape, but did find him liable for sexual abuse of Carroll.

Trump responded to the on-air comments with a defamation lawsuit filed in federal court in Florida. The lawsuit was settled by ABC News, owned by Disney, last December. Disney agreed to pay $15 million toward Trump’s presidential library and $1 million of Trump’s legal fees.

The settlement also included an editor’s note, posted on the ABC News website, expressing regret for Stephanopoulos’ comments.

Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.

A California woman is suing Dignity Health, alleging two hospitals denied her emergency abortion services due to their Catholic directives, violating state law and putting her life in danger.

During two separate pregnancies, Rachel Harrison’s water broke at just 17 weeks — a condition that can cause deadly complications. An abortion is typically the course of action recommended by doctors, but on both occasions staff members at Dignity Health hospitals refused to act because they detected a fetal heartbeat, the lawsuit alleges.

The second time it happened, Harrison experienced life-threatening sepsis and had to travel to a hospital outside her insurance network to receive a blood transfusion, the complaint states.

Harrison, 30, and her partner Marcell Johnson filed a lawsuit against Dignity Health in San Francisco Superior Court on Friday. The claim, first reported by Courthouse News Service, alleges that subsidiaries Mercy San Juan Medical Center and Mercy General Hospital refused to provide her emergency abortion care for religious reasons.

The 24 Catholic hospitals within the Dignity Health network follow a set of “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services,” which caused Harrison to be turned away from an emergency room during the loss of a high-risk pregnancy, the complaint alleges.

“While publicly touting their hospitals’ qualifications as reliable emergency services centers, Dignity Health prioritized its own religious directives over the best interests of Rachel’s health and well-being,” the lawsuit alleges.

Last September the state filed a similar lawsuit against a Catholic hospital in Eureka after a woman whose water broke at 15 weeks was denied an emergency abortion. That hospital then agreed to provide emergency abortions in cases where a woman’s health is at risk.

A spokesperson for Dignity Health did not comment on the specific allegations contained in Harrison’s lawsuit.

“When a pregnant woman’s health is at risk, appropriate emergency care is provided,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “The well-being of our patients is the central mission for our dedicated caregivers.”

On Sept. 13, 2024, according to Harrison‘s lawsuit, she experienced a condition called previable preterm premature rupture of the membranes, or previable PPROM, when her water broke at just 17 weeks of pregnancy.

This condition is fatal for the fetus and dangerous for the mother.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the standard of care is to inform the patient that the pregnancy is not viable and recommend termination as the safest option to reduce maternal risk. Miscarrying the fetus naturally comes with higher risk of infection and blood loss, both of which can lead to permanent loss of reproductive function or even death.

Last September, Harrison traveled to Mercy San Juan Medical Center in Carmichael for emergency care, but doctors did not recommend an abortion, the complaint alleges.

“Instead, Rachel was told that because of the hospital’s Catholic affiliation, there was nothing more the hospital could do for her,” the complaint states. “Confused and distressed, Rachel was discharged and left to complete a high-risk miscarriage of a fetus ‘the size of an avocado’ — as she was told by the physician’s assistant — at home, on her own, and without medical supervision.”

She went to a Kaiser hospital the following morning and received emergency care, the lawsuit says.

Last December, Harrison was thrilled to learn that she was pregnant again, but then “her worst nightmare” repeated itself. At 17 weeks pregnant, she once again experienced previable PPROM, the complaint states.

Her insurance only covers OB/GYN care within the Dignity Health network, so she went to Mercy General Hospital in Sacramento.

In a repeat of her past experience, her lawsuit alleges, staff members told her they could not provide the care she sought due to the fetal heartbeat. She was able to access care at another hospital, her complaint says, but experienced sepsis and heavy blood loss in the process.

The lawsuit alleges that the denials violated California’s Emergency Services Law, which requires hospitals operating a licensed emergency room to treat patients suffering from emergency medical conditions, including previable PPROM.

Harrison also alleges that Dignity Health violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Unlawful Competition Law and her right to privacy under the California Constitution.

Harrison and her partner are seeking an order requiring Dignity Health hospitals to provide emergency abortions in a manner compliant with state law, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

Video platform settles lawsuit filed in response to Trump’s suspension over the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol.

YouTube has agreed to pay $24.5m to settle a lawsuit brought by United States President Donald Trump after the platform suspended his account in response to the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol.

Under the settlement, YouTube, which is owned by Google parent company Alphabet, will contribute $22m on Trump’s behalf to the Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit that is overseeing a $200m project to construct a ballroom at the White House, a court filing showed on Monday.

The remaining $2.5m will go to other plaintiffs in the case, including the American Conservative Union and American author Naomi Wolf, according to the filing at the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

The settlement does not include any admission of wrongdoing by YouTube, and was reached for the “sole purpose of compromising disputed claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of further litigation”, according to the filing.

The payout is a relatively small sum for YouTube, whose advertising revenues came to nearly $9.8bn in the second quarter of 2025 alone.

The settlement comes after Meta Platforms and X earlier this year agreed to multimillion-dollar payouts to resolve Trump’s claims that he was unduly censored following the January 6 attack, which was carried out by Trump supporters motivated by his false claim that the 2020 election had been “stolen”.

John P Coale, a Trump ally and lawyer who brought the three cases, said he was pleased with the outcome.

“Very much so,” Coale told Al Jazeera. “As is the president and the other plaintiffs.”

Coale said the three cases had netted $60m in total.

“We believe we changed the behaviour,” he said.

After de-platforming Trump over fears his false claims about the 2020 presidential election were driving violence, Big Tech has moved to curry favour with his administration since his return to the White House.

Earlier this month, tech CEOs, including Google’s Sundar Pichai, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Apple’s Tim Cook, lavished praise on Trump at a White House dinner event and expressed support for his administration’s initiatives on artificial intelligence.

Media companies have also paid out large sums to resolve Trump’s legal claims.

Paramount Global said in July that it had agreed to pay $16m to resolve Trump’s claims that CBS News’s 60 Minutes programme had deceptively edited an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.

In December, ABC News agreed to contribute $15m to Trump’s library to settle claims that he had been defamed by its anchor, George Stephanopoulos.

Timothy Koskie, a postdoctoral researcher at the School of Media and Communications at the University of Sydney, said that YouTube’s settlement dealt a blow to hopes for a consistent approach to content moderation by social media platforms.

“Unfortunately, with the erosion of a rules-based order, we simply can’t expect to get consistent treatment from anyone who seeks to benefit from this administration,” Koskie told Al Jazeera.

“That is going to include an incredibly large swath of companies that we engage with in our daily lives, particularly, but very much not exclusively, the platforms. Rather than removing censorship, this vigorously empowers it in an especially selective vein.”

“Further, the US historically set precedents for many governments around the world,” he added.

Sept. 29 (UPI) — YouTube has agreed to pay $24.5 million, toward the construction of a new White House ballroom, to settle a lawsuit by President Donald Trump for suspending his channel in 2021 following the Jan. 6, riots.

The online video platform, owned by Alphabet, will pay $22 million from the settlement to the nonprofit Trust for the National Mall, which is “dedicated to restoring, preserving and elevating the National Mall, to support the construction of the White House State Ballroom,” according to court documents. The ballroom is estimated to cost $200 million, according to the White House.

The other $2.5 million from YouTube’s settlement will go to other plaintiffs, including the nonprofit American Conservative Union.

YouTube is the third tech platform to settle with Trump, who also settled with Meta and Twitter for banning his accounts in 2021. Trump settled with Meta for $25 million and with Twitter, renamed X, for $10 million.

All three platforms claimed Trump’s posts after the U.S. Capitol riots risked inciting further violence. Trump said the suspensions amounted to censorship. All of his accounts were reinstated after tech leaders took a more supportive stance, with Elon Musk of X, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Alphabet chief executive officer Sundar Pichai attending Trump’s inauguration in January.

Trump also has received settlements from media outlets, including CBS and ABC News. ABC and Disney settled with the president for $15 million toward his future presidential library after he accused the network and anchor George Stephanopoulous of defamation. And Paramount Global paid out $16 million for CBS’ editing of a Kamala Harris interview on “60 Minutes.”

Last week, YouTube said it would reinstate a number of banned accounts, which had violated the channel’s now defunct rules about posting misinformation about COVID-19 and the 2020 election.

YouTube “values conservative voices on its platform and recognizes that these creators have extensive reach and play an important role in civic discourse,” the platform said.

California and other Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration on Monday for allegedly stripping them of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal security and disaster relief funding based on their unwillingness to aid in federal immigration enforcement.

The lawsuit comes just days after a federal judge in a separate case barred the administration from conditioning similar federal grant funding on states rescinding their so-called “sanctuary” policies protecting immigrants.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the latest funding reduction — which the states were notified of over the weekend — flew in the face of last week’s ruling. He criticized it as an illegal effort to force Democratic states into complying with a federal immigration campaign they have no legal obligation to support.

“Tell me, how does defunding California’s efforts to protect against terrorism make our communities safer?” Bonta said in a statement. “President Trump doesn’t like that we won’t be bullied into doing his bidding, ignoring our sovereign right to make decisions about how our law enforcement resources are best used to protect our communities.”

The White House referred questions on the lawsuit to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

The agency has previously argued that its core mission is to defend the nation’s security against threats, including from illegal immigration, and therefore that it should be able to withhold funding from states that it believes are not upholding or are actively undermining that mission.

The funding in question — billions of dollars annually — is distributed to the states to “prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from catastrophic disasters,” and have been distributed “evenhandedly” for decades by administrations of both political parties, the states’ lawsuit argues.

The funding, authorized by Congress in part after disasters such as September 11 and Hurricane Katrina, pays for things such as the salaries and training of first responders, testing of state computer systems for vulnerabilities to cyber attacks, mutual aid compacts among regional partners and emergency responses to disasters, the states said in their lawsuit.

Bonta’s office said California expected about $165 million, but was notified it would receive $110 million, a cut of $55 million, or a third of its funding. Other blue states saw even greater reductions, with Illinois seeing a 69% reduction and New York receiving a 79% reduction, it said.

Other states that are supporting the Trump administration’s immigration policies received large increases, and some more than 100% increases, the suing states said.

They said the notifications provided no justification for the reductions, noting only that they were made at the direction of Homeland Security. And yet, the reason was clear, they said, including because of recent comments by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other administration officials who have stated outright that states who do not cooperate with federal immigration policies and that maintain sanctuary policies would see reduced funding.

“The explanation for DHS and FEMA’s last-minute decision to reallocate $233 million in homeland security funds — the Reallocation Decision — is apparent. Although DHS has for decades administered federal grant programs in a fair and evenhanded manner, the current Administration is taking money from its enemies,” the states wrote in their lawsuit. “Or, as defendant Secretary Noem put it succinctly in a February 19 internal memorandum, States whose policies she dislikes ‘should not receive a single dollar of the Department’s money.’”

The states also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to immediately block the funding cuts — and prevent the Federal Emergency Management Agency from disbursing any related funds that could not be recouped later — as the case proceeds.

Just last week, a federal judge ruled that the administration setting immigration-related conditions on similar emergency funding was “arbitrary and capricious,” and unconstitutional.

“DHS justifies the conditions by pointing to its broad homeland security mission, but the grants at issue fund programs such as disaster relief, fire safety, dam safety, and emergency preparedness,” the judge in that case wrote. “Sweeping immigration-related conditions imposed on every DHS-administered grant, regardless of statutory purpose, lack the necessary tailoring.”

Last month, another judge ruled in a third case that the Trump administration cannot deny funding to Los Angeles or other local jurisdictions based on their sanctuary policies.

In their lawsuit Monday, California and the other states argued that the Trump administration appeared “undeterred” by last week’s ruling against pre-conditioning funding on immigration enforcement cooperation.

After being “frustrated in its first attempt to coerce [the states] into enforcing federal civil immigration law,” the states wrote, “DHS took yet another lawless action” by simply reallocating funding to “more favored jurisdictions” willing to support the administration’s immigration crackdown.

Bonta said the law requires such funding to be distributed based on objective assessments of “threat and risk,” but the weekend notifications showed the Trump administration doing little more than “rushing to work around last week’s order” and “force and coerce” blue states into compliance in a new way.

“This is a lawless, repeat offender administration that keeps breaking the law,” he said.

Bonta said the lawsuit is the 40th his office has filed against the current Trump administration to date. He said his office was in conversation with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, and that they both believe that “we deserve all the funding that has been appropriated to us.”

Joining California in Monday’s lawsuit were Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia. All were also party to the litigation challenging preconditions on such funding that was decided last week.

A federal jury on Thursday found hip-hop producer Metro Boomin not liable in his civil sexual assault case, after nearly a year of litigation. He is feeling more than relieved.

“I’m grateful and thankful to God that I can finally put all of this nonsense behind me,” the Grammy-nominated “Like That” musician said in a statement shared on Instagram after the verdict.

The jury sided with the 32-year-old artist, whose real name is Leland Tyler Wayne, after a brief trial that began Tuesday. He was cleared in all four actionable claims brought by Vanessa LeMaistre, who first raised her allegations in a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles in October 2024.

LeMaistre said in her initial lawsuit that she and Wayne struck up a connection in spring of 2016 amid their mutual grief: The musician had broken up with a longtime girlfriend and LeMaistre had lost a 9-month-old son “as a result of a rare and fatal disease,” according to court documents. LeMaistre alleged the assault occurred that September after he invited her to a recording studio to watch him work.

LeMaistre described the alleged incident as the “second worst thing that ever happened to her,” other than the death of her child. She also accused Wayne of impregnating her through rape and said she underwent an abortion.

The producer’s legal team quickly denied the allegations last October and dismissed the complaint as a “pure shakedown.” Attorney Lawrence C. Hinkle II echoed those sentiments Thursday in a statement shared after the verdict.

“We are extremely grateful for the jury’s careful consideration of the evidence and for reaching the correct decision,” Hinkle said. “The allegations against Mr. Wayne were frivolous and unequivocally false. Mr. Wayne has endured serious and damaging accusations, and today’s verdict confirms what he has always said — the plaintiff’s claims against him are completely fabricated.”

After Thursday’s verdict, LeMaistre attorney Michael J. Willemin said that although “the legal system is often stacked against survivors, our client showed unwavering fortitude throughout this trial.”

Willemin added: “We are disappointed in the outcome but are proud to represent Ms. LeMaistre and believe that the verdict will ultimately be overturned on appeal.”

Though the case — which was moved from L.A. County Superior Court to California Central District Court in December — ended in victory for Metro Boomin, he said in his statement it also resulted in a “a long list of losses.” He lamented the money and time “wasted” in the litigation process and said there had been an “incalculable amount of money and opportunities that did not make it to me or my team during this time.”

The Missouri-born artist also spoke about the case’s toll on his personal life, writing that “the trauma my family and I have endured during this dark period can never be forgiven.” He detailed adopting his youngest siblings and expressed concern over their possible online exposure to the case.

“I’m disappointed in not only the plaintiff but the janky lawyers who made the made the conscious decision to take on this suit, even though it was evident long ago that these claims had no legs or merit and would not end up going anywhere,” he said, later expressing gratitude for his own legal team.

Metro Boomin rose to prominence in the mid-2010s, working with rap stars including Young Thug, Future and Nicki Minaj. Over the years, he has also racked up collaborations with Drake, Kanye “Ye” West, Kendrick Lamar, SZA and Lil Wayne. Most recently, he reunited with Young Thug as a producer for Thug’s new album, “UY Scuti,” the rapper’s first since his release from Georgia’s Fulton County Jail last October.

With the case behind him for now, Metro Boomin concluded his statement by sending “peace and love to the actual victims out there as well as the innocent and accused.”

Every episode of “South Park” opens with a disclaimer: “All characters and events in this show — even those based on real people — are entirely fictional. All celebrity voices are impersonated … poorly. The following program contains coarse language and due to its content it should not be viewed by anyone.”

While some of that language must be required by an exhausted legal team behind the scenes, the long-running satirical cartoon is known for pressing hot-button topics and rapidly churning out searing parodies. Season 27, which premiered in July, is no exception, focusing on President Trump, his associates, policies and other current events. Some members of Trump’s cabinet have been outspoken about their likeness appearing in “South Park,” but others have shrugged it off. Over the years, the animated series has depicted conservatives and liberals alike, leaving almost no public figure, politician or activist shielded from critique or crude depiction.

This season has had an unusual cadence of episodes, with the first two arriving on a weekly schedule, then biweekly before the arrival of Episode 5, which aired three weeks later on Wednesday. The delayed episode arrived after the shooting death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, whose debate style was depicted in the Episode 2. However, “South Park” creators Matt Parker and Trey Stone told the Denver Post the delay was unrelated to recent events, like Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension, or the content: “No one pulled the episode, no one censored us, and you know we’d say so if true.” The pair had issued a statement on Sept. 17 saying the episode wasn’t finished in time. Future episodes will air every two weeks through Dec. 10.

Here is a guide to every parody and reference so far on this season of “South Park.”

This story will be updated with each new episode.

‘Sermon on the ‘Mount,’ Episode 1

Cartman in “Sermon on the ‘Mount.”

(Comedy Central)

Cutting funding to the Corp. for Public Broadcasting

Cartman is dismayed to find out National Public Radio has lost its federal funding after he tunes in to hear static — an NPR program is his “favorite show,” he says, where “all the liberals b— and whine about stuff.” He rants to his friends about how the government “can’t cancel a show” and wonders what might be next on the chopping block.

In July, the Senate voted to approve the Trump White House’s proposal to claw back roughly $1 billion in federal funding previously allocated for public broadcasting. NPR and PBS are still operating despite the funding cuts, but layoffs and reduced programming are expected.

Christianity in public schools

Head of South Park Elementary PC Principal, whose name was a play on the initialism for politically correct, announces to the school that his name now stands for “Power Christian Principal.” He holds an assembly where he says that “our Lord and savior Jesus Christ” is the only thing that can bring back some normalcy to these “corrupt times.” He proceeds to welcome Jesus to the assembly as a guest speaker. When the students go back home, their parents and the people of South Park are alarmed to hear about the emphasis on Christianity — and the presence of Jesus — in the town’s public school.

Trump has previously endorsed displaying the Ten Commandments in classrooms amid a push to incorporate more Christianity into public schools.

‘Woke is dead’

The phrase frequently used by Trump was inscribed on a T-shirt Cartman wears after he realizes the concept of “wokeness” is no longer prominent. “Everyone hates the Jews, everyone’s fine with using gay slurs,” he says, lamenting that he no longer feels purpose if there’s no wokeness to contest.

Karoline Leavitt

The White House press secretary is depicted corralling the president, sporting a large cross necklace, as she often does during press briefings. Leavitt tells Trump a lot of his supporters are starting to turn against him and begs him to talk to them, adding that they’re “really riled up.” Trump’s base has expressed frustration over the administration’s approach to sharing information about the Jeffery Epstein case after he promised more transparency about the convicted sex offender, who died by suicide in 2019, and the sex trafficking investigation involving the late financier.

President Trump

Trump appears this season with an image of his face over an animated body, frequently repeating the phrase “Relax, guy” and threatening lawsuits against anyone who’s in his way. He is shown berating a White House portrait painter for an unflattering depiction of him and there are references to the size of the president’s genitalia. He’s also depicted as being in an abusive relationship with Satan — in which Trump is the abuser. “South Park” has previously depicted Satan as being the victim in an abusive relationship with Saddam Hussein.

The Epstein list

Satan laments the speculation that Trump’s name is on the “Epstein list,” a purported list of his alleged clients. In reality, the Justice Department has said no such list exists, walking back comments Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi made in a Fox News interview earlier this year that the list was “sitting on my desk” in preparation for release. When the list is brought up in the series, fictional Trump says, “Are we still talking about that?,” mirroring comments he made in real life.

CBS’ ’60 Minutes’ and Paramount drama

The stopwatch featured in the introduction to “60 Minutes” is strapped to a bomb when it appears on “South Park.” The hosts of the show are visibly nervous and continue praising the president while covering his lawsuit against the town of South Park, adding that they don’t agree with Trump’s detractors.

The scene references the legal tussle between Trump and Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS, which airs “60 Minutes.” The president sued over edits to a “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, which led to Paramount agreeing to pay $16 million to settle the lawsuit in July; shortly after, the Federal Communications Commission, led by a Trump appointee, approved Paramount’s merger with Skydance.

Between the settlement and merger approval, CBS announced it is canceling “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.” Colbert frequently skewers the president on his show, and Trump praised the cancellation. Paramount also recently bought the global streaming rights to “South Park” in a lucrative $1.5-billion deal for Parker and Stone.

During the episode’s fictitious “60 Minutes” segment over Trump’s lawsuit against the town, Jesus comes to visit the townspeople. Through whispers, he tells them, “I didn’t want to come back and be in the school, but I had to because it was part of a lawsuit and the agreement with Paramount.”

“The president’s suing you?” a protester asks.

Jesus, through clenched teeth, explains: “The guy can do what he wants now that someone backed down. … You guys saw what happened to CBS? Well, guess who owns CBS? Paramount! You really want to end up like Colbert? You guys gotta stop being stupid. … If someone has the power of the presidency and also has the power to sue and take bribes, then he can do anything to anyone.”

“All of you, shut the f— up or South Park is over!” Jesus says.

The people of South Park end up settling their lawsuit with the president for $3.5 million, saying it will be fine as long as they cut some funding for their schools, hospitals and roads. And as part of the settlement, they have to agree to “pro-Trump messaging.” Cut to a live-action deepfake video of Trump trekking through the desert in a show of loyalty to his supporters before he strips naked.

‘Got a Nut,’ Episode 2

Cartman becomes a podcaster in Episode 2.

(Comedy Central)

Note: This episode aired on Aug. 6, more than a month before political commentator Charlie Kirk, who is parodied throughout the episode, was shot and killed.

ICE recruitment and immigration raids

This episode is focused on the ongoing raids carried out across the country by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Department of Homeland Security officials since earlier this year.

When South Park Elementary counselor Mr. Mackey is fired — the government is doing away with needless spending in schools, he’s told — he signs up for a job with ICE, enticed by a generous signing bonus and a higher salary. Mackey watches a promotional video, complete with animations of officers wearing gaiters and a theme song: “We don’t ask for experience, just show up / We don’t care if you’ve read a book or grown up / If you’re crazy or fat and lazy, we don’t care at all … If you need a job, it’s a job to have.”

Mackey is hired with alarming speed and proceeds to go on his first raid, targeting a “Dora the Explorer” live show, which has a not-so-intimidating audience of young children and abuelitas. After ICE agents hear from protesters that there are “many Latinos in heaven,” they make the pearly gates their next stop.

Kristi Noem

The Department of Homeland Security secretary leads ICE agents through a series of raids this episode, but she first appears in an orientation video. She tells the new recruits, “A few years ago, I had to put my puppy down by shooting it in the face because sometimes doing what’s important means doing what’s hard,” and she proceeds to going on a shooting spree targeting yelping puppies (including Krypto the Superdog) throughout the episode. In her 2024 book, Noem wrote about how she killed her 14-month-old dog for exhibiting aggressive behavior.

She’s also seen rounding up as many immigrants as possible in raids, shouting orders like, “If it’s brown, it goes down.”

And in a running gag, her face periodically melts off, requiring a glam squad equivalent to a pit crew, and at one point, it seems to take on a life of its own. Trump also says her face “freaks me out” during the episode.

Noem responded to the depiction on Glenn Beck’s podcast, calling it “lazy” to target her looks. “If they wanted to criticize my job, go ahead and do that, but clearly they can’t, they just pick something petty like that,” she said.

Right-wing debate podcasts

While conservative political commentator Charlie Kirk does not appear as a character in this episode, his style of debate content — and his name — are featured.

Loudmouthed Cartman is frustrated that so many others, namely his classmate Clyde Donovan, are profiting off of “his shtick” of arguing against liberal views.

Clyde has a debate podcast, inviting viewers to watch as he “totally destroys these woke liberal students.” He’s set up in a tent on a college campus where he waits as a line of students come to speak with him, and he challenges them to “prove me wrong.” Cartman eventually takes over, saying that he is the “master debater” and sporting a haircut similar to Kirk’s. He shuts down his opponents’ arguments with phrases like, “You just hate America and you love abortions.”

Clyde and Cartman’s content replicates Kirk’s well-known style. The founder of the conservative organization Turning Point USA frequently toured college campuses and hosted events just like the one depicted in the episode. The phrase “prove me wrong” was used frequently by Kirk to promote his events, inviting students to challenge his political and cultural views.

On Sept. 10, Kirk was shot and killed while hosting such an event at Utah Valley University, the first stop of his “American Comeback” tour. Weeks before he was killed, Kirk responded to the episode with a 30-minute YouTube video, finding it humorous.

“I think a lot of it was hilarious towards me,” he said. “Some of it was very funny and I don’t think we should have too thick of skin.”

He also touched on the reach of his organization and events, noting that his name is enshrined in “The Charlie Kirk Award for Young Masterdebaters” that Cartman and Clyde compete for in the episode. “So a campus thing I’ve been doing for 13 years to debate random college kids has now been so important that it gets prominent prime-time placement on Comedy Central?” he asked through laughs. “I think the whole thing is just awesome and hilarious.”

Mar-a-Lago

When Mr. Mackey is rewarded for good work as an ICE agent, he’s flown to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, where he frequently stays and hosts events.

He’s greeted by giggling women who hand him a drink and put flower leis around his neck before the president meets him and gives him a brief tour of Mar-a-Lago. While there, Mackey accidentally walks in on two older men receiving massages from younger women, one of whom is a tearful Dora, detained in the raid that took place earlier in the episode. The scene is likely a reference to Epstein and accounts from survivors who say they were forced to give massages to him and his associates. Trump said this summer that Epstein “stole” young women who worked at the Mar-a-Lago spa, which caused them to have a falling-out.

JD Vance

The vice president is depicted as a version of Tattoo, the character from late-’70s drama “Fantasy Island,” and is animated similarly as Trump, except the photo used for his face is lifted directly from viral memes. He often does the president’s bidding, calling him “boss.” In turn, Trump frequently calls Vance “stupid.” Acknowledging the caricature, Vance wrote on X, “Well, I’ve finally made it.”

‘Sickofancy,’ Episode 3

Randy begins microdosing ketamine and Towelie goes to Washington, D.C., in this episode.

(Comedy Central)

Immigration raid at cannabis farm

Randy’s hemp farm business, Tegridy Farms, is the site of an immigration raid at the the beginning of this episode. While Randy is shooting a commercial, complete with calming guitar music and a trite script, ICE officers interrupt by detaining almost all the workers. “You sons of b—,” Randy screams after the vans as they drive away. “Those are my Mexicans!”

In July, chaotic raids targeting a cannabis company’s growing site and greenhouse in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties drew national attention after a man who was fleeing immigration officials died.

Microdosing ketamine

With his business in shambles, Randy rethinks his strategy with the help of an over-complimentary AI chatbot. Perhaps in a nod to Trump’s former ally and onetime “special government employee” Elon Musk, the billionaire businessman behind Tesla, SpaceX and X, Randy turns to ketamine. Randy insists a slew of “tech guys” are taking small doses of ketamine and the drug “gives their minds the edge to work with AI.” Ketamine “bolsters our focus and creativity,” he tells his partner Towelie. Under the influence of the drug, Randy transforms Tegridy Farms from a “quaint farm” into an “AI-powered marijuana platform for global solutions.”

Musk’s use of ketamine and other drugs has been previously reported, with the tech leader saying in a 2024 interview that ketamine has been prescribed to him and is “helpful for getting one out of a negative frame of mind.” He has denied abusing it. “If you use too much ketamine, you can’t really get work done. I have a lot of work, I’m typically putting in 16-hour days,” he said. “So I don’t really have a situation where I can be not mentally acute for an extended period of time.”

Musk supported Trump’s campaign and served as an advisor to the president, helming the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year with the goal of slashing spending.

Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook

Meta and Apple chief executives Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook, who were both present at Trump’s inauguration and have maintained friendly relationships with him, are both portrayed in this episode as members of a long line outside of the Oval Office waiting to bestow a gift on the president.

“Mr. President, your ideas for the tech industry are so innovative,” Cook says to Trump. Cook gives the president a gift on behalf of Apple, which actually happened this summer. Zuckerberg is later seen giving the president a gift that appears to be a gold and bejeweled Meta virtual reality headset.

Luxury jet from Qatar

Qatar’s leader is also seen in line holding a model gold plane with a tag that says “Air Force One.” Like everyone else, the leader compliments the president and insists his genitalia is not small before giving him the gift. Trump and the Defense Department accepted a luxury Boeing 747 aircraft from Qatar for President Trump to use as Air Force One this summer, despite ongoing questions about the ethics and legality of taking the expensive gift from a foreign nation.

Washington, D.C.

When Towelie takes a trip to the capital in this episode, he sees armed troops guarding monuments like the Washington and Lincoln memorials and the Capitol surrounded by tanks and jets. In the episode, the Lincoln Memorial has been replaced by a statue of a stern-faced Trump with exposed genitalia.

In August, Trump called up National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., to assist federal law enforcement in his bid to “reestablish law and order” by targeting criminals — though crime has been down in the city — and the homeless. Although troops were not initially armed, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth later ordered them to carry service-issued weapons.

Reclassifying marijuana

Randy sends Towelie to meet with Trump and give him a gift in hopes of persuading him to reclassify marijuana on the national level. (The gift is Towelie himself.) Randy, in the form of a hologram, tells Trump he thinks they can work out a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Trump said in an August press conference that his administration was considering reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug, which would be a significant change in policy but would not make the drug legal across the country.

‘Wok is Dead,’ Episode 4

Butters buys a Labubu for his girlfriend.

(Comedy Central)

Tariffs and Labubus

The clerk at the City Pop-Up — rebranded from City Wok — the lone purveyor of Labubus in the area, says the popular dolls are hard to keep in stock, and they’re very expensive because of tariffs. The “mystery box” that Butters has to purchase for the chance of getting the exact Labubu his girlfriend wants sets him back $85, and later, the price shoots up to $120 to offset a rise in tariffs. (The real-life dolls often fetch much more than that on resale sites, especially if they are rare.) When Butters balks at the price, the store owner explains that the cost of tariffs is passed onto the customer.

Fox News

This episode shows a clip from a Fox News segment where an anchor is overly complimentary of the president. The anchor says the president will take questions from a “diverse crowd of reporters” after returning to the U.S. from a historic tariff summit, only to reveal all of the reporters are from Fox.

The Fox News reporters also fixate on President Trump’s relationship with his wife, Melania, and his increasingly frequent appearances with Satan. There’s a heavy use of wordplay that suggests the anchors could be asking about the affair between the president and Satan or about whether Trump is actually the devil himself.

Kid Rock

Fox News reporters check in with Trump ally Kid Rock after breaking the news that — buckle up — Trump has impregnated Satan. A sobbing Kid Rock tells the reporters, “I’m just so happy.” The musician is a friend and ardent supporter of Trump, having performed at his inaugural rally in January and spoken many times publicly about his support of the president.

‘Conflict of Interest,’ Episode 5

South Park Season 27, Episode 5 “Conflict of Interest”

(Comedy Central)

Israel and Gaza

Kyle becomes irate when his classmates place bets on a popular market prediction app that his mother would “strike Gaza and destroy a Palestinian hospital.”

This episode marks the first time this season that the show has touched on the current conflict in Gaza, and it referenced real-life Israeli strikes on hospitals in the area.

Donald Trump Jr.

Trump’s eldest son appears in this episode as someone with many roles — he’s a strategic advisor for predictive markets, he answers the phone for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and also acts as a special advisor to Israel. Although he wears all those hats, the series doesn’t portray him as particularly bright — he has a complete conversation over the phone with himself.

He’s also animated to look as if he’s had extensive plastic surgery and he speaks with a strained voice, as if he can’t move his face.

Trump Jr. holds several key roles in his family’s business and his father’s political sphere in real life, and he serves as an advisor to both Polymart and Kalshi, two prediction market apps that are named and spoofed in this episode.

Trump’s stance on abortion

Less keen on the baby he’s expecting with Satan, Trump looks for different ways to harm the pregnancy in hopes of terminating it. He asks Satan if he wants to smoke and hang out in a hot tub, holds up a wire hanger, tries to get him to trip down the stairs or fall under a pile of cat feces, and even makes Satan a soup full of emergency contraceptive pills.

In reality, Trump has repeatedly shifted his messaging on abortion but has most recently said he believes specific abortion policies and access should be decided not by federal law but by individual states.

Brendan Carr

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission comes into the fold this episode when Kyle goes through several hoops to try to file a complaint over the bet involving his mom, which he finds offensive. The FCC is “dealing with all the offensive stuff now,” Kyle is told.

Carr says he needs to speak with the president after learning about the offensive content, but he ends up falling victim to all of Trump’s antics in his attempt to terminate Satan’s pregnancy, which send him to the hospital. The doctors say they’re “afraid he may lose his freedom of speech.”

Vance later threatens Carr, who keeps interfering with Trump’s attempts to end Satan’s pregnancy (Vance doesn’t want anything to mess with his proximity to the presidency). “We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way,” Vance says to Carr.

Those words match the phrase Carr said in real life a week before this episode aired in reference to his call on ABC to act on comments late-night host Jimmy Kimmel made about Kirk’s suspected killer and his death. Carr has remained in the headlines since then as backlash grew against the FCC’s role in Kimmel’s suspension.

Benjamin Netanyahu

Frustrated by the bet about her and the ongoing conflict in Gaza, Kyle’s mom storms into the office of the Israeli prime minister. “Just who do you think you are, killing thousands and flattening neighborhoods, then wrapping yourself in Judaism like it’s some shield from criticism?” she says. “You’re making life for Jews miserable and life for American Jews impossible.” She continues to berate him and a group of officials while the credits roll. Netanyahu does not say anything in response.

Sept. 23 (UPI) — The Wall Street Journal filed a motion Monday to dismiss President Donald Trump‘s $10 billion defamation lawsuit over the newspaper’s reporting on a 50th birthday letter he claims he did not write to Jeffrey Epstein more than two decades ago.

According to the filing, The Journal argued the case should be thrown out because “the article is true.”

“Epstein’s estate produced the Birthday Book, which contains the letter bearing the bawdy drawing and Trump’s signature, exactly as The Wall Street Journal reported.”

“While this case’s threat to the First Amendment is serious, the claims asserted by President Trump are meritless and should be promptly dismissed with prejudice,” the newspaper said.

Trump has denied writing the letter, saying, “This is not me,” and “This is a fake thing.” He is asking for $10 billion on two counts of defamation, which could total more than $20 billion.

The Journal’s filing asks the court to order Trump pay the defendants’ attorneys’ fees. The newspaper argues the article is not defamatory.

“Even if it had reported that President Trump personally crafted the letter — and it does not — there is nothing defamatory about a person sending a bawdy note to a friend,” according to the motion, which detailed the note that included a drawing of a naked woman.

Trump disagreed.

“The Wall Street Journal and News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald Trump that the supposed letter they printed by President Trump to Epstein was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social in July. “The press has to learn to be truthful and not rely on sources that probably don’t even exist.”

The Wall Street Journal’s motion to dismiss comes days after a federal judge threw out a $15 billion lawsuit, also filed by the president, against The New York Times. The judge called Trump’s allegations “superfluous.”

Last year, Trump won a $15 million settlement from ABC News in a defamation suit against the network over false statements. Trump also won a $16 million settlement from CBS News over what he called deceptively edited comments during the presidential election.

Sept. 19 (UPI) — A $15 billion lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump against the New York Times was rejected by a federal judge Friday.

Judge Steven Merryday in Tampa, Fla., said Trump’s lengthy lawsuit had too much praise for the president and “superfluous allegations.”

Merryday said Trump’s two civil allegations against the newspaper are only mentioned in the last few pages of the 85-page complaint. The other pages are full of complaints about his political enemies and boasting of his accomplishments.

Merryday gave Trump 28 days to file another version of the lawsuit.

“As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an adversary,” Merryday wrote. “A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner.”

“This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner,” the judge wrote.

The Times company wrote in a statement when Trump’s lawsuit was filed that his complaint is “without merit.” Times executive editor Joe Kahn on Thursday said he was confident the paper would win.

“He’s wrong on the facts; he’s wrong on the law. And we’ll fight it, and we’ll win,” Kahn said at an Axios Media Trends Live event Thursday. He said he did not see a scenario in which the Times would settle with the president.

When he filed the suit on Monday, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to accuse the newspaper of being a “virtual mouthpiece for the Radical Left Democratic Party,” but did not give details of the alleged falsehoods.

The action for damages amounting to more than the full market capitalization of The New York Times Company, was, Trump said, motivated by an imperative to “restore integrity to journalism.”

“The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW!” Trump said.

He also criticized the paper’s endorsement of Kamala Harris for president in the 2024 election.

Experts have said it was another instance of a strategy of using lawsuits of doubtful legality to gag critical voices and suppress free speech.

Trump has won multi-million dollar settlements from ABC News and CBS News, in December and July, respectively, prompting groups representing the journalism industry to warn that opting to settle out of court was only fueling Trump’s “lawfare.”

Addressing the Reporters & Editors 50th anniversary gala in New York on Monday, before the latest suit was filed, Times publisher AG Sulzberger warned of a growing so-called “anti-press playbook” trend among “aspiring strongmen” globally of leveraging civil law to exert financial pressure on media.

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla.  — A Florida federal judge on Friday tossed out a $15-billion defamation lawsuit filed by President Trump against The New York Times.

U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday ruled that Trump’s 85-page lawsuit was overly long and full of “tedious and burdensome” language that had no bearing on the legal case.

“A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally,” Merryday wrote in a four-page order. “This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner.”

The judge gave Trump 28 days to file an amended complaint that should not exceed 40 pages.

The lawsuit named four Times journalists and cited a book and three articles published within a two-month period before the last election.

The Times had said it was meritless and an attempt to discourage independent reporting. “We welcome the judge’s quick ruling, which recognized that the complaint was a political document rather than a serious legal filing,” spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said Friday.

Merryday noted that the lawsuit did not get to the first defamation count until page 80. The lawsuit delves into Trump’s work on “The Apprentice” TV show and an “extensive list” of Trump’s other media appearances.

“As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an adversary,” wrote Merryday, an appointment of former President George H.W. Bush. “Although lawyers receive a modicum of expressive latitude in pleading the claim of a client, the complaint in this action extends far beyond the outer bound of that latitude.”

The lawsuit named a book and an article written by Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig that focuses on Trump’s finances and his pre-presidency role in “The Apprentice.”

Trump said in the lawsuit that they “maliciously peddled the fact-free narrative” that television producer Mark Burnett turned Trump into a celebrity — “even though at and prior to the time of publications defendants knew that President Trump was already a mega-celebrity and an enormous success in business.”

The lawsuit also attacked claims the reporters made about Trump’s early business dealings and his father, Fred.

Trump also cited an article by Peter Baker last Oct. 20 headlined “For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment.” He also sued Michael S. Schmidt for a piece two days later featuring an interview with Trump’s first-term chief of staff, John Kelly, headlined “As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator.”

Trump has also sued ABC News and CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” both of which were settled out of court by the news organizations’ parent companies. Trump also sued The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch in July after the newspaper published a story reporting on his ties to wealthy financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Anderson writes for the Associated Press.

Apparently, love is blind to a healthy work environment. That’s what’s alleged in a new class-action lawsuit filed this week.

Stephen Richardson, a contestant on Season 7 of the Netflix dating show “Love Is Blind,” is suing the streaming service and the production companies behind the series, alleging they failed to pay overtime and minimum wages and didn’t provide accurate and itemized wage statements and uninterrupted meal periods. The class action was filed Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Richardson alleges in the lawsuit that producers wrongly classified him and the rest of the cast, who he says regularly worked 20-hour shifts, in order to pay them less. The lawsuit lists Kinetic Content, Delirium TV and Netflix as defendants.

Producers exerted “complete domination over [participants’] time, schedule, and their ability to eat, drink, and sleep, and communicate with the outside world during the period of employment” and further restricted participants’ actions after the show wrapped, the complaint says. The conditions were “unsafe and inhumane,” the lawsuit says.

“Love Is Blind” follows a group of single men and women searching for love the old-fashioned way, by communicating blindly through a wall. Couples are kept from each other until they establish an engagement, which pays off with unexpected facial reactions that express emotions including great dissatisfaction, confusion or a sigh of relief.

In recent years, the show has been hit with similar lawsuits from other former cast members. Last year, Season 5 participant Renee Poche and Season 2 veteran Nick Thompson filed a lawsuit against the production companies after she was penalized for breaching her contract by publicly discussing her experience on the show.

“I am now being sued for $4 million despite earning $8,000 for my participation on the show,” Poche told USA Today.

Poche alleged the production companies were retaliating against her for speaking about the working conditions she endured. After feeling “like a prisoner” while working on the show, she says, she was cut from the final version of the series.

Season 2 cast member Jeremy Hartwell sued Kinetic Content and Netflix in 2022 for allegedly violating labor laws and creating an “unsafe and inhumane” work environment. Then a number of unnamed former cast members spoke to Insider in April 2023, alleging producers subjected them to 20-hour production days, rarely allowed them to go outside, failed to provide adequate food and mental-health services and ignored their pleas for help.

Throughout the years, reality TV has tried to protect itself from real-life lawyers with nondisclosure agreements and provisions requiring disputes be taken to arbitration. The new complaint has Richardson as the named defendant along with “all others similarly situated.”

The accuser is looking for unspecified damages. Richardson, Netflix, Kinetic Content and Delirium TV did not immediately respond Wednesday to The Times’ request for comment.

NEW YORK — President Donald Trump filed a $15-billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times and four of its journalists on Monday, according to court documents.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Florida names several articles and one book written by two of the publication’s journalists and published in the lead up to the 2024 election, saying they are “part of a decades-long pattern by the New York Times of intentional and malicious defamation against President Trump.”

“Defendants published such statements negligently, with knowledge of the falsity of the statements, and/or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity,” the lawsuit says.

The New York Times did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment early Tuesday.

In a Truth Social post announcing the lawsuit, Trump accused The New York Times of lying about him and defaming him, saying it has become “a virtual ‘mouthpiece’ for the Radical Left Democrat Party.”

Trump has gone after other media outlets, including filing a $10-billion defamation lawsuit against the The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch in July after the newspaper published a story reporting on his ties to wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein.

WASHINGTON — Hours after the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, FBI Director Kash Patel declared online that “the subject” in the killing was in custody. The shooter was not. The two men who had been detained were quickly released. Utah officials acknowledged that the gunman remained at large.

The false assurance was more than a slip. It spotlighted the high-stakes uncertainty surrounding Patel’s leadership of the bureau when its credibility is under extraordinary pressure, as is his own.

Patel now approaches congressional oversight hearings this week facing not just questions about that investigation but broader doubts about whether he can stabilize a federal law enforcement agency fragmented by political fights and internal upheaval.

Democrats are poised to press Patel on a purge of senior executives that has prompted a lawsuit, his pursuit of President Trump’s grievances over the Russia investigation long after it ended, and a realignment of resources that has prioritized illegal immigration and street crime over the FBI’s traditional pursuits.

The hearings will offer Patel his most consequential stage yet, and perhaps the clearest test of whether he can convince the country that the FBI, under his watch, can avoid compounding its mistakes in a time of political violence and deepening distrust.

“Because of the skepticism that some members of the Senate have had and still have, it’s extremely important that he perform very well at these oversight hearings” on Tuesday and Wednesday, said Gregory Brower, the FBI’s former top congressional affairs official.

The FBI declined to comment about Patel’s coming testimony.

Inaccurate claim after Kirk shooting

Kirk’s killing was always going to be a closely scrutinized investigation, not only because it was the latest burst of political violence in the U.S. but also because of Kirk’s friendships with Trump, Patel and other administration figures and allies.

While agents investigated, Patel posted on X that “the subject for the horrific shooting today that took the life of Charlie Kirk is now in custody.” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said at a near-contemporaneous news conference that “whoever did this, we will find you,” suggesting authorities were still searching. Patel soon after posted that the person “in custody” had been released.

Two people were initially held for questioning in the case, but neither was a suspect.

As the search stretched on, Patel angrily vented to FBI personnel Thursday about what he perceived as a failure to keep him informed, including that he was not quickly shown a photograph of the suspected shooter. That’s according to people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to discuss it by name and spoke on condition of anonymity to the Associated Press. The New York Times earlier reported details of the call.

Asked about the scrutiny of Patel’s performance, the FBI said it had worked with local law enforcement to bring the suspect, Tyler Robinson, to justice and “will continue to be transparent.”

Patel’s overall response did not go unnoticed in conservative circles. One prominent GOP strategist, Christopher Rufo, posted that it was “time for Republicans to assess whether Kash Patel is the right man to run the FBI.”

FBI personnel purge

On the same day Kirk was killed, Patel also faced a lawsuit from three FBI senior executives fired in an August purge that they characterized as a Trump administration retribution campaign.

Among them was Brian Driscoll, who as acting FBI director in the early days of the administration resisted Justice Department demands for names of agents who investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. Driscoll alleged in the lawsuit that he was let go after he challenged the leadership’s desire to terminate an FBI pilot who had been wrongly identified on social media as having been part of the FBI search for classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. Trump, while out of office, was indicted for his role in Jan. 6 and the classified documents case.

The upheaval continues a trend that began before Patel took over, when more than a half-dozen senior executives were forced out under a Justice Department rationale that they could not be “trusted” to implement Trump’s agenda.

There’s since been significant turnover in leadership at the FBI’s 55 field offices. Some left because of promotions or retirements, but others because of ultimatums to accept new assignments or resign. The head of the Salt Lake City office, an experienced counterterrorism investigator, was pushed out of her position weeks before Kirk was killed at a Utah college, said people familiar with the move.

FBI’s priorities shift

Patel arrived at the FBI having been a sharp critic of its leadership, including for the Trump indictments and investigations that he says politicized the institution. Under Patel and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, the FBI and Justice Department have become entangled in their own politically fraught investigations, such as one focused on New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James.

He’s moved quickly to remake the bureau, with the FBI and Justice Department working to investigate one of the Republican president’s chief grievances — the years-old Trump-Russia investigation. Trump calls that probe, which found that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help him get elected but did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Russia and Trump’s campaign, a “hoax.”

The Justice Department appeared to confirm in an unusual statement that it was investigating former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan, pivotal players in the Russia investigation, but did not say for what. Bondi has directed that evidence be presented to a grand jury.

Critics of the new Russia inquiry consider it a transparent attempt to turn the page from the fierce backlash the FBI and Justice Department endured from Trump’s base following the July announcement that those agencies would not be releasing any additional documents from the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation.

Patel has meanwhile elevated the fight against street crime, drug trafficking and illegal immigration to the top of the FBI’s agenda, in alignment with Trump’s agenda.

The bureau defends its aggressive policing in American cities that the Trump administration contends have been consumed by crime, despite falling crime rates in recent years in the cities targeted. Patel says the thousands of resulting arrests, many immigration-related, are “what happens when you let good cops be good cops.”

Critics say the street crime focus draws attention and resources from the sophisticated public corruption and national security threats for which the bureau has long been primarily, if not solely, responsible for investigating.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

TUCSON — A federal judge in Arizona temporarily blocked the Trump administration from removing dozens of Guatemalan and Honduran children living in shelters or foster care after coming to the U.S. alone, according to a decision Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez in Tucson extended until at least Sept. 26 a temporary restraining issued over the Labor Day weekend. Márquez raised concern over whether the government had arranged for any of the children’s parents or legal guardians in Guatemala to take custody of them.

Laura Belous, attorney for the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, which represents the children, said in court that the minors had expressed no desire to be repatriated to their native Guatemala and Honduras amid concerns they could face neglect, possible child trafficking or hardships associated with individual medical conditions.

Lawyers for the children said that their clients have said they fear going home, and that the government is not following laws designed to protect migrant children.

A legal aid group filed a lawsuit in Arizona on behalf of 57 Guatemalan children and 12 from Honduras between the ages of 3 and 17.

Denise Ann Faulk, an assistant U.S. attorney under the Trump administration, emphasized that the child repatriations were negotiated at high diplomatic levels and would avoid lengthy prohibitions on returning to the U.S.

Nearly all the children were in the custody of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s Office of Refugee Resettlement and living at shelters in the Phoenix and Tucson areas. Similar lawsuits filed in Illinois and Washington seek to stop the government from removing the children.

The Arizona lawsuit demands that the government grant the children their right to present their cases to an immigration judge, to have access to legal counsel and to be placed in the least restrictive setting that is in their best interest.

The Trump administration has argued it is acting in the best interest of the children by trying to reunite them with their families at the behest of the Guatemalan government. After Guatemalan officials toured U.S. detention facilities, the government said that it was “very concerned” and that it would take children who wanted to return voluntarily.

Children began crossing the border alone in large numbers in 2014, peaking at 152,060 in the 2022 fiscal year. July’s arrest tally translates to an annual clip of 5,712 arrests, reflecting how illegal crossings have dropped to their lowest levels in six decades.

Guatemalans accounted for 32% of residents at government-run holding facilities last year, followed by Hondurans, Mexicans and Salvadorans. A 2008 law requires children to appear before an immigration judge with an opportunity to pursue asylum, unless they are from Canada and Mexico. The vast majority are released from shelters to parents, legal guardians or immediate family while their cases wind through court.

The Arizona lawsuit was amended to include 12 children from Honduras who have expressed to an Arizona legal aid group that they do not want to return to Honduras, as well as four additional children from Guatemala who have come into government custody in Arizona since the lawsuit was initially filed Aug. 30.

Judge Márquez said she found it “frightening” that U.S. officials may not have coordinated with the children’s parents. She also expressed concern that the government was denying the children access to review by an experienced immigration judge, and noted that legal representatives for the children were notified of preparations for child departures with little notice, late at night.

“On a practical matter, it just seems that a lot of these things that [the Office of Refugee Resettlement] has taken upon themselves to do — such as screening and making judicial determinations that should be made by an immigration judge with expertise and time to meet with a lawyer and meet with a child — is just surpassed by saying ‘we’re reuniting them’” with parents, Márquez said in court as she pressed Faulk for more information.

Billeaud and Lee write for the Associated Press.