Tyler Perry is facing legal backlash to the tune of $260 million from an actor who appeared in his BET drama “The Oval” and is accusing the media mogul of quid pro quo sexual harassment, sexual battery and retaliation, among other counts.
Perry’s accuser, actor Derek Dixon, filed his lawsuit against the billionaire film and TV producer in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Friday. The actor claims Perry leveraged his power and standing in entertainment “to create a coercive, sexually exploitative dynamic with Mr. Dixon — initially promising him career advancement and creative opportunities,” according to court documents reviewed by The Times. Tyler Perry Studios and the And Action production company are listed as co-defendants.
“This is an individual who got close to Tyler Perry for what now appears to be nothing more than setting up a scam,” Perry’s attorney Matthew Boyd said in a statement to The Times. “But Tyler will not be shaken down and we are confident these fabricated claims of harassment will fail.”
In his 46-page complaint, Dixon says he met the “House of Payne” creator in September 2019 when he was working as event staff for one of Perry’s parties. The multi-hyphenate entertainer offered Dixon the chance to audition for his show “Ruthless” a month after their first meeting. Perry claimed he would “change [Plaintiff’s] life” and offered him a small role in the TV series, “setting up the first stage in a series of escalating quid pro quo offers,” the lawsuit alleges.
From January 2020 to June 2024, Perry “sustained a pattern of workplace sexual harassment, assault and retaliation,” the lawsuit alleges. Dixon appeared in 85 episodes of Perry’s presidential drama “The Oval” from 2021 to 2025, according to IMDb.
Dixon accused Perry of relentlessly probing him about his sex life, making suggestive comments and expressing jealousy about his interactions with other men during the duration of their work together. The complaint features multiple screenshots of alleged conversations between Dixon and the media mogul, including messages in which the director asks “What’s it going to take for you to have guiltless sex?” and likens the actor to a rose but says he is “so blocked that you refuse to be smelt [sic] or opened.”
The lawsuit — which evokes cases against Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey and other high-profile Hollywood figures accused of sexual harassment — also details multiple occasions where Perry allegedly groped the actor. The first was in January 2020 when Dixon stayed the night in a guest room at Perry’s home in Georgia and allegedly felt Perry “slip into bed behind him and start rubbing Dixon’s body around his inner thigh in a highly sexual and suggestive manner.” Dixon also accuses Perry of “violently” grabbing his throat in March 2020, groping his buttocks in a trailer later that year, and pulling down his underwear and groping his buttocks again in June 2021.
The complaint underscores that Dixon repeatedly refused Perry’s advances and walked a fine line, keeping his interactions with Perry professional but friendly enough to remain in his good graces. He claims the threat of Perry killing off his character constantly loomed over his “Oval” tenure. In addition to casting Dixon in his series, Perry also expressed interest in helping the actor develop a show, the lawsuit says.
Dixon distanced himself from Perry after the alleged June 2021 assault, the lawsuit says, but the producer’s “fixers” reached out with a new storyline for his “Oval” character and a pay raise. They also allegedly told Dixon he could not tell his castmates about the new perks.
Perry allegedly continued to ask Dixon about his sex life through the years that followed and in March 2024 plans to pitch Dixon’s show began to fall apart. After Perry offered Dixon a writing spot on one of his series in June 2024, Dixon “woke up and realized Perry was never going to be serious about helping Dixon” grow his career, the lawsuit says.
Dixon claims he reported the alleged sexual harassment to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission but the complaint was not investigated. Dixon left “The Oval” and Perry allegedly retaliated by telling Dixon he could say only that he was taking medical leave. “Defendant made the leave of absence unpaid and therefore terminated Plaintiff’s employment causing Dixon additional loss of income and insult,” the suit says.
The lawsuit also includes allegations of work environment harassment, workplace gender violence, sexual assault, negligent retention and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
President Trump has endorsed David Ellison’s takeover of Paramount Global — an $8-billion merger that has been complicated by his $20-billion lawsuit over CBS’ “60 Minutes.”
On Wednesday, Trump was asked about the hold-up in the federal review of Skydance’s takeover of the storied entertainment company. The question came as reporters clustered around the president on the White House lawn to watch the installation of a flagpole.
The Paramount-Skydance deal has been pending at the Federal Communications Commission since late last fall.
Trump said he hoped the deal goes through.
“Ellison is great. He’ll do a great job with it,” Trump said.
Then he appeared to connect the merger-review delay to his lawsuit against CBS and its parent Paramount over last fall’s “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.
Trump has maintained since last October that the Harris interview was edited to burnish her chances in the November election. CBS has denied the allegations, saying the edits were routine. The raw footage showed Harris was accurately quoted, but Trump’s team said he suffered “mental anguish” from the broadcast.
“They interviewed Kamala. Her answer was horrendous,” Trump said Wednesday. “I would say it was election-threatening. I would say election-threatening because it was so incompetent.”
1st Amendment experts have called Trump’s case frivolous, but Paramount wants to avoid waging an extensive legal fight. Paramount’s leaders have pursued a settlement to help clear a path for the company’s sale to Skydance — a deal that needs the approval of the FCC.
The mediation process to resolve the lawsuit, filed in a Texas court, has become protracted.
“They are working on a settlement,” Trump said Wednesday. He mentioned that two high-level CBS executives — the head of CBS News and the executive producer of “60 Minutes” — had abruptly departed as the merger review dragged on.
“They’re all getting fired,” he said.
Late last week, Trump’s legal team filed court documents asking for a deadline extension in the discovery process, disclosing the two sides were working to reach a resolution.
Earlier this month, Ellison met Trump briefly while the two men were sitting ringside at a UFC fight in New Jersey, according to video footage shared online. Skydance declined to discuss Ellison’s interaction with Trump.
It marked the second time this year that Ellison chatted with the president at a UFC match. The first was in April.
It’s been nearly a year since Paramount’s controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and fellow Paramount directors approved the two-phased $8-billion deal that will hand the company to the son of tech billionaire Larry Ellison, who is a Trump supporter. The deal will also see the Ellison family buy the Redstone investment vehicle, National Amusements Inc.
Santa Monica-based Skydance intends to consolidate the company that boasts the Melrose Avenue Paramount film studio, Paramount+ streaming service, CBS and cable channels including Comedy Central, Showtime and BET.
Skydance operations and personnel will be folded into Paramount.
The deal faces one final regulatory hurdle: FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s consent to transfer 29 CBS television station licenses to the Ellisons from the Redstones. This week, the Senate approved Trump’s second Republican appointment to the panel, Olivia Trusty.
A California Democratic Party employee sued the organization in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Wednesday, alleging he was repeatedly groped and sexually assaulted by former Chairman Eric Bauman.
William Floyd, who served as Bauman’s assistant from March 2016 until November 2018, claims in the suit that Bauman performed oral sex on him without his consent on at least three occasions. He said he became fearful of Bauman after the party leader allegedly told him, “If you cross me, I will break you.”
Floyd, 28, is seeking damages for lost income, emotional distress and pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The complaint names Bauman, 60, and the state and Los Angeles County Democratic parties as defendants, alleging that the two organizations failed to prevent Bauman’s harassing behavior and retained him in “conscious disregard of the rights and well-being of others.”
“We have not yet been formally served with this lawsuit and have only learned about the filing of it through media inquiries this evening,” said Neal S. Zaslavsky, Bauman’s attorney. “As with the other pending matter, Mr. Bauman will not be trying this case in the media. Mr. Bauman denies the allegations in the complaint and looks forward to complete vindication once the facts come out.”
Mark Gonzalez, chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party, said the group was “reviewing the allegations of the complaint” and had no further comment.
Alexandra “Alex” Gallardo Rooker, who stepped in as acting chairwoman of the state party after Bauman’s resignation, said in a statement that the allegations “are very serious and deserve a hearing. The most appropriate venue for us all to learn the truth, whatever it may be, is ultimately in the courtroom where we can let the sun shine in.”
The lawsuit comes amid continued turmoil in the party after the resignation of Bauman, who stepped down in November following claims of sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior toward party staff members and activists.
At the time, Bauman said that he planned to seek treatment for health issues and alcohol use.
“I deeply regret if my behavior has caused pain to any of the outstanding individuals with whom I’ve had the privilege to work. I appreciate the courage it took for these individuals to come forward to tell their stories,” Bauman said.
“In the interest of allowing the CDP’s independent investigation to move forward, I do not wish to respond to any of the specific allegations. However, I will use the time I am on leave to immediately seek medical intervention to address serious, ongoing health issues and to begin treatment for what I now realize is an issue with alcohol,” he added.
Bauman and the party were earlier sued by three other employees in January, who alleged discrimination and a culture of harassment and sexual misconduct that was “well-known and apparently tolerated” by top officials.
According to the new lawsuit filed Wednesday, Floyd first met Bauman in 2015 while he was interning for the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. By then, the complaint says, “Bauman had a reputation for excessive drinking, making crude sexual comments to LACDP and CDP employees and volunteers, and engaging in unwanted sexual touching and/or physical intimidation” in professional settings.
In an June 2016 incident in Long Beach, Floyd alleges, he was in Bauman’s hotel room with other members of the L.A. County party and fell asleep after having too much to drink. When he woke up, the complaint alleges, he found Bauman performing oral sex on him and quickly pulled up his pants and fled the room. The lawsuit alleges that in later conversations, Bauman implied that he had penetrated Floyd during the incident.
On two other occasions alleged in the suit, Floyd said “felt he had no choice” to comply with Bauman’s demands and allow him to perform oral sex.
The lawsuit says that on Nov. 1, just days before the 2018 midterm election, Floyd told a senior party staffer that Bauman had sexually assaulted him. Several days later, the complaint says, Floyd was contacted by the party’s human resources director, Amy Vrattos.
But officials with the party “looked the other way, and failed to confront Bauman” because of his success helping Democratic candidates across the state, the lawsuit alleges.
“Maybe I was naive, but I really thought that, by working for the Democratic Party, I could advance the causes I believed in,” Floyd said in a statement provided by his attorney. “Most of us lived in fear of [Bauman].”
Floyd’s attorney, Scott Ames, said the party has “stonewalled” his client and has “not done anything to rectify the situation.”
After Bauman resigned, the suit says, Floyd met with the state party’s investigator, who was examining allegations against Bauman. Less than a week later, the complaint alleges, state party officials told Floyd that they were closing the organization’s Los Angeles office and that he would be terminated unless he agreed to work at Sacramento headquarters.
Floyd agreed to move to Sacramento in January 2019 to keep his job, the complaint says. He is still employed by the party but plans to move back to Los Angeles County this year for graduate school.
The suit is the latest in a series of blows to the fractured California Democratic Party, which despite historic wins in last year’s elections has faced a reckoning in the #MeToo era. In addition to fallout from Bauman’s resignation, Rooker was criticized for firing two colleagues who helped file a sexual harassment complaint against Bauman.
“This is not unusual when there is a change in leadership,” Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the party, said in a statement. “These moves are not necessarily a reflection upon the work of each of the individuals involved, but are part of a desire by the acting chair to start fresh and keep the party moving in the right direction.”
Alleging widespread and egregious violations of housing and tenant laws, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sued Southern California real estate tycoon Mike Nijjar in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Thursday.
In the lawsuit, Bonta accused Nijjar, family members and their companies of subjecting tenants to vermin infestations and overflowing sewage, overcharging them and violating anti-discrimination laws.
The suit says that Nijjar is one of California’s largest landlords, operating multibillion dollars in holdings. Nijjar family companies, commonly known as PAMA Management, own 22,000 rental units, primarily in low-income neighborhoods in Southern California.
The suit follows a more than two-year California Department of Justice investigation into Nijjar’s holdings, Bonta said.
“PAMA and the companies owned by Mike Nijjar and his family are notorious for their rampant, slum-like conditions — some so bad that residents have suffered tragic results,” Bonta said in a statement. “Our investigation into Nijjar’s properties revealed PAMA exploited vulnerable families, refusing to invest the resources needed to eradicate pest infestations, fix outdated roofs and install functioning plumbing systems, all while deceiving tenants about their rights to sue their landlord and demand repairs.”
Bonta is seeking penalties against Nijjar and his family business entities, restitution for tenants, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and injunctive relief barring Nijjar and PAMA from continuing unlawful business practices.
A representative for Nijjar said he forcefully rejects the claims in the lawsuit.
“The allegations in the complaint are false and misleading, and its claims are legally erroneous,” Nijjar attorney Stephen Larson said in a statement. “We look forward to demonstrating in court that Mr. Nijjar and his companies are not only compliant with the law, but they provide an extraordinary service to housing those disadvantaged and underserved by California’s public and private housing markets.”
Nijjar’s real estate empire has long been on authorities’ radar.
In 2020, LAist detailed wide-ranging dangerous conditions at Nijjar’s properties dating back years, including a fire at a PAMA-owned mobile home in Kern County that resulted in the death of an infant. The mobile home was not permitted for human occupancy, according to the report and Bonta’s lawsuit. Two years later, The Times wrote a series of stories about Chesapeake Apartments, a sprawling 425-unit apartment complex in South L.A., where Nijjar’s tenants complained of sewage discharges, regular mold and vermin infestations and shoddy repairs. Chesapeake had the most public health violations of any residential property in L.A. County over the previous five years, according to a Times analysis at the time.
Prior attempts at accountability for Nijjar and his companies have been spotty and ineffective. After the 2016 mobile home fire that killed the infant in Kern County, the California Department of Real Estate revoked the licenses associated with Nijjar’s company at the time. In response, Nijjar and family members reorganized their business structure, the suit said.
The L.A. city attorney’s office resolved a nuisance abatement complaint against PAMA at Chesapeake in 2018, only for the widespread habitability problems to emerge. A similar case filed by the city attorney’s office against a PAMA property in Hollywood remains in litigation more than three years after it was filed. In the meantime, Nijjar’s companies have settled multiple habitability lawsuits filed by residents.
Bonta said that PAMA has taken advantage of lax and piecemeal accountability efforts and its low-income tenants’ vulnerability. Most residents, he said, have low or fixed incomes with few alternatives other than to endure the shoddy conditions in their rentals.
The lawsuit alleges that the habitability problems at PAMA properties are “ongoing business practices” — the result of decisions to make cheap repairs rather than necessary investments in maintenance, the use of unskilled handymen, lack of staff training and failure to track tenant requests.
“Nijjar and his associates have treated lawsuit after lawsuit and code violation after code violation as the cost of doing business and have been allowed to operate and collect hundreds of millions of dollars each year from families who sleep, shower, and feed their children in unhealthy and deplorable conditions,” Bonta said. “Enough is enough.”
Besides tenants’ living conditions, the suit alleges Nijjar and PAMA have induced residents into deceptive leases, discriminated against tenants on public assistance programs and issued unlawful rent increases.
The suit contends PAMA’s leases attempt to invalidate rights guaranteed under law, including the opportunity to sue and make repairs the landlord neglected and deduct these costs from the rent. The company has told Section 8 voucher holders that there are no units available when others are being rented to applicants without vouchers, the complaint said.
The case alleges that PAMA has violated California’s rent cap law on more than 2,000 occasions. The law limits rent increases to 5% plus inflation annually at most apartments. PAMA, the suit says, shifted mandatory shared utility costs, which used to be paid by the landlord, onto tenants’ bills in an attempt to evade the cap. The combination of the new utility costs and rent hikes resulted in total increases of up to 20%, more than double the allowable amount, according to the suit.
June 12 (UPI) — The Supreme Court brought back a lawsuit against the FBI over a mishandled home raid from 2017 in Atlanta on Thursday.
A unanimous decision moved the case over an incident in which federal agents broke through the door of Trina Martin’s home with a search warrant at the wrong address, back to a lower court to look at it again to see if the lawsuit can move forward.
Martin sued the government for assault and battery, false arrest and other violations, after the FBI entered her home, where she lived with her then-boyfriend Toi Cliatt and 7-year-old son Gabe Watson, believing it was the home of an alleged violent gang member.
The suit alleged that agents entered the home with their guns drawn and set of a flash bang that startled the family and caused Gabe to scream.
The Supreme Court ruled that a federal judge in Atlanta and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were wrong to dismiss the suit, ordering them to determine whether the discretionary-function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act in 2019, under which the suit was filed, would allow the case to go forward.
The justices did not answer the question, but allowed the plaintiffs to argue it in the lower courts.
“It is work enough for the day to answer the questions we took this case to resolve, clear away the two faulty assumptions on which that court has relied in the past and redirect it to the proper inquiry,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote.
“We readily acknowledge that different lower courts have taken different views of the discretionary function exception,” Gorsuch continued.”We acknowledge, too, that important questions surround whether and under what circumstances that exception may ever foreclose a suit like this one.”
During the raid Martin’s former boyfriend was handcuffed and she wanted to go to her son. She wasn’t allowed to move and the 7-year-old woke up to see agents with guns in his room.
After the agents realized their mistake they left the house and their supervisor came back to apologize.
The FBI had an arrest warrant out for Joseph Riley. After they left Martin’s house, FBI raided Riley’s house and arrested him.
Pattrick Jaicomo, Martin’s lawyer in a statement said the court was right to revive the Martin family’s case
“The Court’s decision today acknowledged how far the circuit courts have strayed from the purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is to ensure remedies to the victims of federal harms-intentional and negligent alike,” he said. “We look forward to continuing this fight with the Martins in the Eleventh Circuit and making it easier for everyday people to hold the government accountable for its mistaken and intentional violations of individual rights.”
California sued the U.S. Justice Department on Monday over its demand last week that local school districts ban transgender youth from competing in sports, arguing the federal agency had overstepped its authority in violation of both state and federal law.
The “pre-enforcement” lawsuit was filed “in anticipation of imminent legal retaliation against California’s school systems” for not complying with the agency’s directive by its Monday deadline, said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, which is handling the litigation.
“The President and his Administration are demanding that California school districts break the law and violate the Constitution — or face legal retaliation. They’re demanding that our schools discriminate against the students in their care and deny their constitutionally protected rights,” Bonta said in a statement. “As we’ve proven time and again in court, just because the President disagrees with a law, that doesn’t make it any less of one.”
The lawsuit comes a week after Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump appointee and head of the federal Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, sent a letter to school districts across California warning them that they faced potential “legal liability” if they did not “certify in writing” by Monday that they will break with California Interscholastic Federation rules and state law to ban transgender athletes from competition in their districts.
Dhillon argued that allowing transgender athletes to compete “would deprive girls of athletic opportunities and benefits based solely on their biological sex,” in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond responded last week by saying in his own letter to schools that Dhillon’s warning carried no legal weight and that school districts were still obligated to follow state law, which requires transgender athletes be allowed to compete on teams based on their gender identity.
The California Department of Education sent a letter to federal authorities Monday, informing them that California’s school districts are under no obligation to provide certifications to the Justice Department.
“There are no changes in law or circumstances that necessitate a new certification,” wrote General Counsel Len Garfinkel. “Moreover, the DOJ letter references no law that would authorize the DOJ to require another ‘certification.’”
“All students — not just transgender students — benefit from inclusive school environments that are free from discrimination and harassment,” Garfinkel added. “When transgender students are treated equally, their mental health outcomes mirror those of their cisgender peers.”
Bonta’s lawsuit asks a federal court in Northern California to uphold the constitutionality of California’s antidiscrimination laws protecting transgender athletes, and to bar the Trump administration from withholding funds or taking other retaliatory actions against school districts that refuse to abide by the Trump directive.
The lawsuit falls along one of the fastest growing legal and political fault lines in America: Does the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment — the Constitution’s oft-cited guarantee against discrimination — protect transgender rights or undermine them?
Dhillon, other members of the Trump administration and anti-transgender activists nationwide have argued that the inclusion of transgender girls in youth sports amounts to illegal discrimination against cisgender girls.
Bonta’s office and other LGBTQ+ advocates argue that the exclusion of transgender girls is what constitutes illegal discrimination — and that courts, including the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs California and much of the American West, have agreed.
While Dhillon “purports that compliance with the Equal Protection Clause requires the categorical exclusion of transgender girls from girls’ sports, as courts have previously upheld, just the opposite is true: the Equal Protection Clause forbids such policies of total exclusion, as does California law,” Bonta’s office said.
State law that allows transgender students to participate in sports consistent with their identity “is squarely within the State’s authority to ensure all students are afforded the benefits of an inclusive school environment, including participation in school sports, and to prevent the serious harms that transgender students would suffer from a discriminatory, exclusionary policy.”
An attorney who supports keeping transgender athletes out of girls sports said the rights of female athletes are paramount in this situation.
Both the U.S. Constitution and federal statute provide protections for female athletes that California is violating by “allowing males into ‘girls only’ categories,” said Julie A. Hamill, principal attorney with California Justice Center, a law firm that has complaints pending with the federal Office for Civil Rights on behalf of young female athletes.
“By continuing to fan flames of division and play politics, leftist politicians and media outlets are causing further harm to American girls,” Hamill said.
Polls have shown that Americans generally support transgender rights, but also that a majority oppose transgender girls competing in youth sports. Many prominent advocates for excluding transgender girls from sports praised Dhillon’s actions last week as a bold move to protect cisgender girls from unfair competition.
Sonja Shaw, a Trump supporter who is president of the Chino Valley Unified Board of Education, has called on California school systems to adopt resolutions in support of the Trump administration order.
“The stakes couldn’t be higher,” Shaw said last week. “Our daughters deserve safe, fair competition … But radical policies are undermining that right, pushing boys into girls’ sports and threatening their opportunities. We’re not backing down.”
Shaw, a candidate for state superintendent of public instruction, said other school systems could model these resolutions on one passed by her school district.
A handful of the state’s 1,000 school districts have passed such resolutions.
The lawsuit’s claim that retaliation from the Trump administration could be imminent for schools that do not comply with the administration’s demands is not entirely speculative. It is based at least in part on repeated threats and actions the administration has already taken against states over its trans-inclusive sports policies.
President Trump has said outright that he wants to cut federal funding to California over its laws allowing transgender athletes to compete in youth sports. The federal Justice Department has announced investigations into the state and the California Interscholastic Federation over its inclusive policies for transgender athletes.
U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli in Los Angeles, a longtime ally of Dhillon and whose appointment has yet to be confirmed, recently threw his office’s support behind a private lawsuit challenging the inclusion of a transgender athlete on the track and field team at Martin Luther King High School in Riverside.
Dhillon issued her letter to California school districts after another transgender athlete from Jurupa Valley High School, 16-year-old AB Hernandez, won multiple medals at the state high school track and field championships despite President Trump demanding on social media that she not be allowed to compete.
The letter came despite attempts by the state to appease concerns.
After Trump’s online threats, for example, the CIF updated its rules for transgender competitors. As a result, Hernandez was allowed to compete at the state finals in the girls’ long jump, high jump and triple jump, but her qualifying did not result in the exclusion of any cisgender girl.
In addition, while Hernandez was awarded several medals, those medals were also awarded to cisgender girls who otherwise would have claimed them had Hernandez not been competing — with the girls sharing those spots on the medal podiums.
Supporters of the rule change said it eliminated concerns about cisgender girls losing opportunities to compete and win to transgender girls, but critics said the changes did not go far enough, and that transgender athletes needed to be fully banned from competition.
Dhillon’s letter demanding school districts certify that such bans were being implemented made no mention of the CIF’s rule change.
June 9 (UPI) — A New York judge on Monday dismissed Justin Baldoni’s $400M lawsuit against actress Blake Lively.
Federal Judge Lewis Liman of New York’s southern district accepted the motion to dismiss the multi-million-dollar counter lawsuit filed by Baldoni that alleged defamation and extortion. In addition, the judge, likewise, tossed out a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The New York Times.
“The [parties in the suit known as the] Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Lively is responsible for any statements other than the statements in her CRD complaint, which are privileged,” Liman wrote in his 132-page ruling.
“The Wayfarer Parties’ additional claims also fail,” the judge added. “Accordingly, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety.”
However, Liman noted that Baldoni, 41, will still have the legal option to amend his claims for breach of implied covenant and contract interference with a June 23 deadline.
The It Ends With Us director Baldoni was accused in December of sexual harassment by his co-star Lively, which Baldoni claimed was “categorically false.”
In January, Baldoni filed a $250 million libel lawsuit against the New York Times over an article that “falsely” detailed Lively’s allegations during filming.
Lively, 37, claimed in her California Civil Rights Department complaint filed Dec. 20 that the harassment damaged her business and caused her family, including husband actor Ryan Reynolds, “severe emotional distress” and after the suit alleged Reynolds called Baldoni a “sexual predator.”
On Monday, lawyers for Lively — Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb — called the court decision a “total victory and a complete vindication.”
“As we have said from day one, this $400 million lawsuit was a sham, and the Court saw right through it,” they said in the statement, adding they look forward to the “next round,” which will be to seek attorney fees, treble and punitive damages.
Discovery+ announced plans in March to air a docuseries in Britain this month called Baldoni vs. Lively: A Hollywood Feud.
Meanwhile, the trial for Baldoni and Lively, which was scheduled for March 26, was expected to see both names testify.
CONCORD, N.H. — President Trump’s administration wants to be dropped from a lawsuit in which two New Hampshire teens are challenging their state’s ban on transgender athletes in girls’ sports and the president’s executive order on the same topic.
Parker Tirrell, 16, and Iris Turmelle, 14, became first to challenge Trump’s “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” order when they added him to their ongoing lawsuit over New Hampshire’s ban in February. A federal judge has ruled that they can try out and play on girls sports teams while the case proceeds.
In a motion filed Friday, attorneys for the government say the teens are trying to “drag the federal government into a lawsuit well under way not because of an imminent injury, but because of a generalized grievance with policies set by the President of the United States.”
Deputy Associate Atty. Gen. Richard Lawson argued that the government has done nothing yet to enforce the executive orders in New Hampshire and may never do so.
“Plaintiffs lack constitutional standing and their stated speculative risk of future injury is not close to imminent and may never become ripe,” wrote Lawson, who asked the judge to dismiss claims against Trump, the Justice and Education departments, and their leaders.
Trump’s executive order gives federal agencies wide latitude to ensure entities that receive federal funding abide by Title IX — which prohibits sexual discrimination in schools — in alignment with the Trump administration’s view of a person’s sex as the gender assigned at birth.
Lawyers for the teens say the order, along with parts of a Jan. 20 executive order that forbids federal money to be used to “promote gender ideology,” subjects the teens and all transgender girls to discrimination in violation of federal equal protection guarantees and their rights under Title IX.
In its response, the government argues that the order does not discriminate based on sex because males and females are not similarly situated when it comes to sports.
Transgender people represent a very small part of the nation’s youth population — about 1.4% of teens ages 13 to 17, or around 300,000 people. But about half of the states have adopted similar measures to New Hampshire’s sports ban, with supporters arguing that allowing transgender girls to play is unfair and dangerous.
In interviews this year, neither New Hampshire teen said they feel they hold any advantage over other players. Tirrell says she’s less muscular than other girls on her soccer team, and Turmelle said she doesn’t see herself as a major athlete.
“To the argument that it’s not fair, I’d just like to point out that I did not get on the softball team,” Turmelle recalled of her tryout last year. “If that wasn’t fair, then I don’t know what you want from me.”
Paramount Global’s efforts to appease President Trump could carry a steep price, and not just financially. As Paramount executives struggle to win government approval for its planned sale, the legal risks and political headaches are spreading — from Washington to Sacramento.
Three U.S. senators have warned Paramount’s controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other decision-makers that paying Trump to drop his $20-billion lawsuit over an October “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a bribe.
Scrutiny widened late last week when two California Democrats proposed a state Senate hearing to probe details of the drama that has roiled the media company for months. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a joint committee hearing in Sacramento to help lawmakers examine problems with a possible Trump settlement.
“I haven’t seen a president act in this brazen of a manner,” state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) said in an interview. “We’re concerned about a possible chilling effect any settlement might have on investigative and political journalism. It would also send a message that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed, especially when paired with regulatory threats.”
Settling the Trump lawsuit is widely seen as a prerequisite for regulators to finally clear Paramount’s $8-billion sale to Skydance Media, which Redstone has been desperately counting on to save her family’s fortunes.
Trump contends CBS edited the “60 Minutes” interview to enhance Harris’ appeal in the 2024 presidential election, which she lost. He reportedly rebuffed Paramount’s recent $15-million offer to settle his lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts have dismissed as frivolous.
“This is a really important case,” said Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA’s School of Law. “Legislators are starting to raise alarms.”
But whether federal or state politicians could foil a Trump settlement is murky. Experts caution, for example, that it may be difficult, if a settlement is reached, to prove that Paramount’s leaders paid a bribe.
Congress has grappled with such distinctions before, Cummings said. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020 after the House voted to impeach him for allegedly holding up nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Biden and his son Hunter. Major universities and law firms offered significant concessions to the administration this year to try to carve out breathing room.
“We would have to have a lot more facts,” Cummings said. “Bribery requires a quid pro quo … and [Trump and his lieutenants] are always very careful not to explicitly couple the two things together. But, clearly, they are related, right? This is the challenge, legally speaking.”
Even if a Paramount payoff could be proved to be a bribe, it’s unclear who would prosecute such a case.
No one expects the Trump-controlled FBI or others within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate allegations of bribery. Trump also has a grip on congressional Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission is run by a Trump appointee, Brendan Carr, who in one of his first acts as chairman, opened a public inquiry into whether the “60 Minutes” edits rose to the level of news distortion.
It may fall to state prosecutors to dig into the issue, Cummings said.
Vice President Kamala Harris talks to “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker.
(CBS News)
That hasn’t stopped nationally prominent progressive lawmakers from sounding alarms.
U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have demanded Paramount provide information about the company’s deliberations or concessions to facilitate a deal with Trump, including whether newscasts were toned down.
“It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,” the lawmakers wrote in their May 19 letter to Redstone. “If Paramount officials make these concessions … to influence President Trump … they may be breaking the law.”
Redstone and Paramount failed to respond to the senators’ questions by this week’s deadline, according to Warren’s office.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has suggested that Paramount executives could be liable for unlawfully paying a bribe if it settles President Trump’s lawsuit against CBS to secure approval of Paramount’s sale to Skydance Media.
(Mark Schiefelbein / Associated Press)
Paramount and a Redstone spokesperson declined to comment.
Lawmakers often express interest in big media takeovers, and Skydance’s proposed purchase of an original Hollywood movie studio and pioneering broadcaster CBS could be an industry game changer. But this time, interest is less focused on vetting the Ellison family or the deal’s particulars and more about determining whether Trump inappropriately wields his power.
Trump has demanded Paramount pay “a lot” of money to settle his lawsuit. The president also has called for CBS to lose its station licenses, which are governed by the FCC.
For more than a month, attorneys for Paramount and Trump have participated in mediation sessions without resolution.
Paramount offered $15 million but Trump said no, according to the Wall Street Journal. Instead, the president reportedly demanded at least $25 million in cash, plus an additional $25 million in free commercials to pump his favorite causes. He also wants an apology.
The latter is a red line for CBS News executives who say they have done nothing wrong, according to insiders who were not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations.
The two California state senators — Becker and Tom Umberg (D-Orange) — hope such fractures provide an opening.
Late last week, the pair invited former CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon and former “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens to testify at a yet-unscheduled oversight hearing in Sacramento.
“You are being approached as friendly witnesses who may help our committees assess whether improper influence is being exerted in ways that threaten public trust and competition in the media sector,” Becker and Umberg wrote to the former executives. Becker is chairman of the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee; Umberg heads the Senate Judiciary Committee.
California has an interest, in part, because Paramount operates in the state, including a large presence in Los Angeles, Becker told The Times.
The controversy over the edits began in October after CBS aired different parts of Harris’ response to a question during a “60 Minutes” interview a month before the election. Producers of the public affairs show “Face the Nation” used a clip of Harris giving a convoluted response. The following day, “60 Minutes” aired the most forceful part of her answer, prompting conservatives to cry foul.
Trump filed his federal lawsuit in Texas days before the election, alleging CBS had deceptively edited the Harris interview to boost her election chances, an allegation CBS denies. After returning to the White House, Trump doubled the damages he was seeking to $20 billion. His team claims he suffered “mental anguish” as a result of the interview.
CBS has asked the Texas judge, a Trump appointee, to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the edits were routine.
Since then, the FCC’s review of Paramount’s Skydance deal has become bogged down. Paramount needs Carr’s approval to transfer CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family.
Paramount has said it is treating the proposed settlement and FCC review on the Skydance merger as separate matters.
Experts doubt Trump sees such a distinction.
Trump and his team “essentially are using government processes to set up negotiations that end up benefiting Trump personally in ways that raise corruption concerns,” Cummings said.
Paramount’s decision could open the company to shareholder complaints.
The reason Trump’s CBS “60 Minutes” lawsuit has become such a lightning rod is “because the lawsuit is so ridiculously frivolous,” said Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which owns Paramount shares and has vowed a lawsuit if the company capitulates.
“This is so transparently an abuse of power — a shakedown,” Stern said.
Media analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners suggested that Trump’s goal may be about more than his reported demand of nearly $50 million.
“The far bigger question is whether there is any number that Trump would want to settle the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit,” Greenfield wrote in a blog post this week. “If Trump’s goal is to weaken the press and cause persistent fear of lawsuits that could negatively impact business combinations, keeping the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit ongoing could be in the President’s best interests.”
UCLA’s Cummings sees another deleterious outcome.
A settlement could “legitimize the narrative that Trump puts out that there’s some sort of corruption within these media entities,” Cummings said. “He could point to a settlement and say: ‘I told you they did something wrong, and they now agreed because they paid me this amount of money.’ ”
“Even though they would be paying to get this deal through,” Cummings said.
Paramount Global chairwoman and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone is battling cancer as she tries to steer the media company through a turbulent sales process.
“Shari Redstone was diagnosed with thyroid cancer earlier this spring,” her spokeswoman Molly Morse said late Thursday. “While it has been a challenging period, she is maintaining all professional and philanthropic activities throughout her treatment, which is ongoing.
“She and her family are grateful that her prognosis is excellent,” Morse said.
The news comes nearly 11 months after Redstone agreed to sell Paramount to David Ellison’s Skydance Media in a deal that would end the family’s tenure as major Hollywood moguls after four decades.
However, the government’s review of the sale to Skydance hit a snag amid President Trump’s $20-billion lawsuit against Paramount and its subsidiary CBS over edits to an October “60 Minutes” broadcast.
Redstone, 71, told the New York Times that she underwent surgery last month after receiving the diagnosis about two months ago. Surgeons removed her thyroid gland but did not fully eradicate the cancer, which had spread to her vocal cords, the paper said.
She continues to be treated with radiation, the paper reported.
The Redstone family controls 77% of the voting shares of Paramount. Since Bob Bakish was ousted as chief executive last year, the company has been managed by a trio of executives who share the title of co-chief executive.
Her father, the late Sumner Redstone, built the company into a juggernaut but it has seen its standing slip in recent years. There have been management missteps and pressures brought on by consumers’ shift to streaming. The trend has crimped revenue to companies that own cable channels, including Paramount.
The COVID-19 pandemic followed by the 2023 writers and actors strikes also took a toll on Paramount and the Redstone family’s private firm, National Amusements Inc., which owns movie theaters.
Paramount cut its dividend to shareholders two years ago, leaving the family in a financial bind.
Financial pressures contributed to Redstone’s decision to entertain offers for Paramount and National Amusements, which holds the Paramount shares.
Nearly two years ago, Ellison and Redstone began talks that culminated last July with an agreement on a multi-phased $8-billion deal that would pass the torch to Ellison.
Redstone wants to close the deal. National Amusements would receive $2.4 billion, which would pay its debts and leave the family with more than $1.7 billion.
She has urged the company to settle the lawsuit Trump filed in October, weeks after “60 Minutes” interviewed then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump accused CBS of deceptively editing the interview to make Harris look smarter and improve her election chances, a charge that CBS has denied.
The dispute over the edits has sparked unrest within the company, prompted high-level departures and triggered a Federal Communications Commission examination of alleged news distortion.
The FCC’s review of the Skydance deal has become bogged down. If the agency does not approve the transfer of CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family, the deal could collapse.
The two companies must complete the merger by early October. If not, Paramount will owe a $400-million breakup fee to Skydance.
Redstone, through National Amusements, also owes nearly $400 million to a Chicago banker who loaned the family money in 2023 and tech titan Larry Ellison, who is helping bankroll the buyout of Paramount and National Amusements.
Last week, Paramount nominated three new directors to serve on the company’s board following its July 2 investor meeting.
In a proxy filing, Paramount asked shareholders to expand the board to seven directors, including Redstone and three recruits: attorney Mary Boies (a member of the firm led by her husband David Boies); Silicon Valley venture capital executive Charles E. Ryan; and former Massachusetts trial court judge Roanne Sragow Licht.
They would join longtime board members Linda M. Griego, Susan Schuman and Barbara M. Byrne.
Various semiautomatic handguns are displayed in a case at a gun store in Dundee, Ill. (2010). On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against a lawsuit filed by Mexico that accuses seven American gun manufacturers and one wholesaler of unlawful sale practices, and arming drug dealers. File Photo by Brian Kersey/UPI | License Photo
June 5 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday against a lawsuit filed by Mexico that accuses seven American gun manufacturers and one wholesaler of unlawful sale practices, and arming drug dealers.
“The question presented is whether Mexico’s complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not,” wrote Justice Elena Kaganin the opinion of the court.
Mexico filed suit in March against a group of companies that includes Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock, alleging that the defendants violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, which can allow for some lawsuits against the makers and sellers of firearms.
As stated in the case document, Mexico purports the accused companies “aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels,” and failed to exercise “reasonable care” to keep their guns from being trafficked into Mexico.
Kagan explained that it falls on the plaintiff in this case to properly show that the defendant companies directly committed violations of PLCAA, or otherwise “the predicate violation opens a path to making a gun manufacturer civilly liable for the way a third party has used the weapon it made.”
Kagan did include that “Mexico has a severe gun violence problem, which its government views as coming from north of the border.” She added that the country has only a single gun store, which is slightly inaccurate as Mexico currently has two, but in regard of the one store she mentioned, Kagan claimed that it “issues fewer than 50 gun permits each year.”
She also purported gun traffickers can purchase weaponry in the United States, often illegally, and then take those guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Kagan further noted that as per the Mexican government, “as many as 90% of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico originated in the United States.”
Nonetheless, the court ruled “that Mexico has not plausibly alleged aiding and abetting on the manufacturers’ part.” This is why, Kagan explained, that the defendant companies are immune under the PLCAA.
In a concurring statement, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court’s opinion hasn’t resolved what exactly a future plaintiff will have to show to prove a defendant has committed a PLCAA violation, and that Mexico hadn’t “adequately pleaded its theory of the case.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also included a concurring statement that Congress passed PLCAA in order to decide “which duties to impose on the firearms industry,” and that ignoring PLCAA’s set reasons that do “authorize lawsuits like the one Mexico filed here” would twist PLCAA’s main purpose.
Eight Mile Style, a company that owns some of Eminem’s most popular songs, is suing social media giant Meta over alleged copyright infringement.
The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Michigan, accuses the Menlo Park-based tech company of storing, reproducing and distributing Eminem’s music without obtaining the license to do so.
Eight Mile Style, which is based in Ferndale, Mich., is seeking at least $109 million from Meta and a court order to stop several alleged forms of copyright infringement.
Music is a big part of social media. On Meta’s platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, people add music in photos and videos they share publicly or with their friends and family.
But the way social media has changed the way people listen to and discover new songs has also sparked concerns from artists about whether they’re fairly compensated.
“Meta’s years-long and ongoing infringement of the Eight Mile Compositions is another case of a trillion (with a ‘T’) dollar company exploiting the creative efforts of musical artists for the obscene monetary benefit of its executives and shareholders without a license and without regard to the rights of the owners of the intellectual property,” the lawsuit said.
Meta said in a statement that it has licenses with thousands of partners globally and an “extensive” global licensing programs for music on its platforms.
“Meta had been negotiating in good faith with Eight Mile Style, but rather than continue those discussions, Eight Mile Style chose to sue,” the company said in an email.
Eight Mile Style owns and controls 243 compositions recorded by Eminem, a rapper and music producer that has created popular hits such as “Lose Yourself.” Meta did remove some of these songs including “Lose Yourself” from its music libraries, but other versions of the music including a piano instrumental cover and a karaoke version still remain on the platform, according to the lawsuit.
Meta not only allowed users who upload these songs to infringe on copyright but knowingly stored and reproduced them in its music libraries so users can use the music in videos and photos, the lawsuit alleges. Users have added Eminem’s music in millions of videos that have been viewed billions of times, according to the lawsuit.
Meta also unsuccessfully tried to obtain a license for Eminem’s songs as part of negotiations with the digital music royalty company Audiam even though the firm didn’t have the authority to give them that license.
“Meta executives have actively encouraged such rampant infringement in order to attract as many users as possible to, among other things, make advertising on their services more profitable for themselves,” the lawsuit said.
More than 3 billion people use one of Meta’s apps daily, and the company makes billions of dollars every quarter from advertising.
In the first three months of this year, Meta’s revenue reached $42.31 billion, an increase of 16% year-over-year. The company’s net income jumped by 35% to $16.6 billion in the first quarter.
This isn’t the first time Meta has faced legal issues over the use of Eminem’s music. In 2013, Eight Mile Style sued Facebook, alleging the social network used the Eminem song “Under the Influence” for an ad without their consent.
In the latest twist in the legal saga between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, Lively is dropping two claims against Baldoni of emotional distress.
As if the drama couldn’t get any messier, the accusations continue to fly. Baldoni’s lawyer filed a letter requesting that the judge in the case compel Lively to “identify her medical and mental health care providers” — signing a HIPAA release to open up access to her therapy notes and pertinent medical info, as People reported.
Rather than do so, the letter says, Lively requested to withdraw her claims of emotional distress, but maybe just for now. Baldoni’s attorney Kevin Fritz said the actor wanted to keep the right to re-file those emotional distress claims at a later time — but Lively “can’t have it both ways.”
Lively’s lawyers take another view.
Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb accused Baldoni’s legal counsel of a “press stunt,” saying they are simply “preparing our case for trial by streamlining and focusing it,” as per Deadline’s reporting.
U.S. District Court Judge Lewis J. Liman had this to say on Tuesday: The two parties must decide “whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice” before proceeding further — the claims are either to be dismissed forever or possibly pursued again, but there is no in-between.
Representatives of Baldoni and Lively did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment on Tuesday.
She accused Baldoni, along with his team, of orchestrating a smear campaign against her after she reported on-set sexual harassment, as first reported by the New York Times.
Most recently, Lively sought to dismiss a defamation countersuit from Baldoni. The motion, filed in March, cites a California law that prohibits “weaponizing defamation lawsuits” against those who have filed suit or “spoken out about sexual harassment and retaliation.”
Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman later called the motion “one of the most abhorrent examples of abusing our legal system.”
But Lively’s motion only picked up steam as it drew widespread support from advocacy groups. Equal Rights Advocates, a gender equity and workplace protection-oriented nonprofit based in San Francisco, urged a federal judge to support the motion and uphold the aforementioned law.
Jessica Schidlow, legal director at Child USA, a nonprofit that pushes for more legal protection of abuse victims, told The Times in May that if the law were to be struck down, it would “essentially do away with the protections for all survivors.”
“It would be a devastating setback and completely undermine the purpose of the law, which was to make it easier for victims to come forward and to speak their truth without fear of retaliation,” she added.
NEWARK, N.J. — Newark Mayor Ras Baraka sued New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor on Tuesday over his arrest on a trespassing charge at a federal immigration detention facility, saying the Trump-appointed attorney had pursued the case out of political spite.
Baraka, who leads New Jersey’s biggest city, is a candidate in a crowded primary field for the Democratic nomination for governor next Tuesday. The lawsuit against interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba coincided with the day early in-person voting began.
The lawsuit seeks damages for “false arrest and malicious prosecution,” and also accuses Habba of defamation for comments she made about his case, which was later dropped.
Citing a post on X in which Habba said Baraka “committed trespass,” the lawsuit says Habba issued a “defamatory statement” and authorized his “false arrest” despite “clear evidence that Mayor Baraka had not committed the petty offense of ‘defiant trespass.’” The suit also names Ricky Patel, the Homeland Security Investigations agent in charge in Newark. Baraka’s attorney, Nancy Erika Smith, said they also expect to sue President Trump’s administration but are required to wait six months.
“This is not about revenge,” Baraka said during a news conference. “Ultimately, I think this is about them taking accountability for what has happened to me.”
Emails seeking comment were left Tuesday with Habba’s office and the Homeland Security Department, where Patel works.
Videos capture chaos outside the detention center
The episode outside the Delaney Hall federal immigration detention center has had dramatic fallout. It began on May 9 when Baraka tried to join three Democratic members of Congress — Rob Menendez, LaMonica McIver and Bonnie Watson Coleman — who went to the facility for an oversight tour, something authorized under federal law. Baraka, an outspoken critic of Trump’s immigration crackdown and the detention center, was denied entry.
Video from the event showed him walking from the facility side of the fence to the street side, where other people had been protesting. Uniformed officials then came to arrest him. As they did, people could be heard urging the group to protect the mayor. The video shows a crowd forming and pushing as officials led off a handcuffed Baraka.
He was initially charged with trespass, but Habba dropped that charge last month and charged McIver with two counts of assaulting officers stemming from her role in the skirmish at the facility’s gate.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Andre Espinosa rebuked Habba’s office after moving to dismiss the charges. “The hasty arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, followed swiftly by the dismissal of these trespassing charges a mere 13 days later, suggests a worrisome misstep by your Office,” he wrote.
McIver decried the charges and signaled she plans to fight them. A preliminary hearing is scheduled later this month.
Baraka said the aftermath of the withdrawn charge meant he had to explain it in the media and argue his case when he had done nothing wrong.
“I want somebody to apologize, write a letter, say this was wrong, come out and say, ‘We shouldn’t have done this,’” he said.
New Jersey targeted over its so-called sanctuary policies
Delaney Hall, a 1,000-bed facility, opened earlier this year as a federal immigration detention facility. Florida-based Geo Group Inc., which owns and operates the property, was awarded a 15-year contract valued at $1 billion in February. The announcement was part of the president’s plans to sharply increase detention beds nationwide from a budget of about 41,000 beds this year.
Baraka sued Geo soon after that deal was announced.
Then, on May 23, the Trump Justice Department filed a suit against Newark and three other New Jersey cities over their so-called sanctuary policies. There is no legal definition for sanctuary city policies, but they generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers.
New Jersey’s attorney general has a statewide directive in place prohibiting local police from collaborating in federal civil immigration matters. The policies are aimed at barring cooperation on civil enforcement matters, not at blocking cooperation on criminal matters. They specifically carve out exceptions for when Immigration and Customs Enforcement supplies police with a judicial criminal warrant. The Justice Department said, though, the cities won’t notify ICE when they’ve made criminal arrests, according to the suit.
It’s unclear whether Baraka’s role in these fights with the White House is affecting his campaign for governor. He’s one of six candidates seeking the Democratic nomination in the June 10 election to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy.
On Tuesday, Baraka explained the timing of the suit as an effort to get the case before the court before it was too late. He described the arrest and fallout as a distraction during the campaign.
“But I also think that us not responding is consent,” he said.
In a video ad in the election’s final weeks, Baraka has embraced a theme his rivals are also pushing: affordability. He says he’ll cut taxes. While some of the images show him standing in front of what appears to be Delaney Hall, he doesn’t mention immigration or the arrest specifically, saying: “I’ll keep Trump out of your homes and out of your lives.”
Trump has endorsed Jack Ciattarelli, one of several Republicans running in the gubernatorial primary. Ciattarelli has said if he’s elected, his first executive order would be to end any sanctuary policies for immigrants in the country illegally.
Catalini writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.
With its sale to Skydance Media still beyond its reach, Paramount Global has nominated three new directors to bolster its small board, which has been racked with drama and churn since early last year.
The debt-laden New York-based company currently has only five board members, including controlling shareholder Shari Redstone, who serves as chairwoman. The Redstone family holds nearly 77% of Paramount’s voting shares, giving the heiress tremendous sway.
In a proxy filing Monday, Paramount asked shareholders to elect seven directors at its July 2 annual meeting. The slate includes Redstone and three recruits: attorney Mary Boies (a member of the firm led by her husband David Boies); Silicon Valley venture capital executive Charles E. Ryan ; and former Massachusetts trial court judge Roanne Sragow Licht.
In addition to Redstone, three longtime board members — Linda M. Griego, Susan Schuman and Barbara M. Byrne — will stand for reelection.
Board member Judith A. McHale has decided to step down.
Leading independent director Charles Phillips left the board in October. His exit came six months after three other directors — Rob Klieger, Nicole Seligman and Dawn Ostroff — abruptly departed as the panel was struggling over terms of Redstone’s planned Paramount sale.
In late October, President Trump filed a lawsuit in Texas over his dismay with edits of a “60 Minutes” interview of then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the closing weeks of the election. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, opened an inquiry to determine whether the edits rose to the level of news distortion.
Paramount has been defending against the lawsuit. In a court filing last week, Trump’s lawyers asserted the president suffered “mental anguish” due to the “60 Minutes” broadcast.
1st Amendment experts have called Trump’s lawsuit frivolous; CBS News executives and other journalists believe it is a shakedown to exploit the vulnerable company that is desperate to have the FCC approve the sale to Skydance.
The ruckus over the edits contributed to the departure of two top CBS News executives. Wendy McMahon, the president of CBS News and Stations, stepped down under pressure last month. In April, “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens departed.
Redstone has expressed her dissatisfaction with CBS News’ coverage of the Israel-Hamas war.
Last month, three Democrat U.S. senators warned Redstone that the company could face allegations of bribery if they write a big check to mollify Trump in an effort to facilitate the FCC’s review of the Skydance takeover. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Paramount offered Trump $15 million to make the lawsuit go away, but he declined.
It’s been nearly 11 months since Paramount agreed to be sold to Skydance in an $8-billion deal that would inject $1.5 billion in capital into Paramount’s battered balance sheet.
Paramount has not revised its guidance on when it expects the deal to close — but the contractual deadline is early October.
As part of its proxy statement, the company again detailed the compensation packages — totaling $148 million to the top three executives and ousted Chief Executive Bob Bakish, who received compensation valued at $87 million. Co-CEO George Cheeks was paid $22.2 million. His counterparts Brian Robbins and Chris McCarthy were paid $19.6 million and $19.5 million, respectively, according to the filing.
Several Vietnamese American-owned nail salons in Orange County have sued California, alleging the state’s labor code is discriminating against their businesses.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana on Friday, alleges that the state’s labor code violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law by forcing nail technicians to be classified as employees.
The suit argues that professionals in the beauty industry for years have operated as independent contractors, renting space in a salon and bringing in their own clients. That changed at the beginning of 2025, when nail technicians under the labor code became required to be classified as employees, the lawsuit said.
State Assemblyman Tri Ta (R-Westminster), who represents Little Saigon and surrounding communities, said his office has fielded much concern from Vietnamese American nail salon owners.
“Their lives have turned upside down overnight,” Ta said at a news conference Monday morning. “It is not just unfair, it is discrimination.”
The switch in labor law came in 2019 when Assembly Bill 5, a sweeping law governing worker classification rules across various industries, was approved. It codified a California Supreme Court decision creating a stricter test to judge whether a worker should be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor.
AB 5 sought to crack down on industries in which many workers are misclassified as independent contractors, who are not afforded protections including minimum wage, overtime pay and workers’ compensation that employees have access to. But various industries have said AB 5 targets them unfairly, creating an uneven playing field for businesses.
Some professions received carve-outs, including doctors, accountants, real estate agents and hairdressers. Others such as truckers, commercial janitors and physical therapists must abide by the tighter classification rules.
Some implementation of the law was staggered to give industries, including nail technicians, time to adapt.
But Ân Tran, who owns two franchisee locations of Happy Nails & Spa that are among the businesses suing the state, said the law remains burdensome. Hiring employees is more costly, and it’s unfair that businesses hiring hairdressers, aestheticians and other beauty workers aren’t subject to the requirement, he said.
“We don’t have customers all the time. That’s going to cost us a lot more to pay them for the downtime when they don’t have any customers,” Tran said in an interview.
The requirement also defies the flexible work culture and control over their clients that many manicurists prefer, Tran said.
Emily Micelle was among several manicurists who spoke in support of the salon owners’ lawsuit at the Monday news conference.
“No one forced me to be here today. I chose to be here because I want to express my side of the story,” Micelle said. “Being [an independent contractor] means I can work for myself, I can be my own boss, I can create my own branding within the business, I choose my own hours, I choose my own clients. … The law means to protect us workers, but [being an employee] doesn’t work for everyone.”
The lawsuit describes how the nail salon industry in California became dominated by Vietnamese workers in recent decades, when Vietnamese refugees began fleeing to the U.S. in large numbers in 1975 after the fall of Saigon in America’s failed military intervention in Southeast Asia.
The industry “has become synonymous with the Vietnamese community,” the lawsuit said, with more than 82% of nail technicians in California being Vietnamese American and some 85% women.
The legal action highlights the tension between how small businesses can serve as a pathway for immigrants and others to build wealth, and how workers at times might have little formal recourse for low wages or unsafe work conditions, experts have said.
Researchers with the UCLA Labor Center last year analyzed U.S. Census Bureau data and released a report estimating that the hourly median wage for nail salon workers in 2021 was $10.94, below the then-$13 minimum wage for small businesses.
In 2017, four women sued a salon in Tustin, alleging that the owners had created bogus time records and paychecks to create an illusion that manicurists were paid lawfully by the hour, but instead workers were compensated based on a 60% commission system where their pay was further deducted for using business supplies, such as spa chairs.
Businesses that filed suit include multiple locations of Blue Nail Bar, Happy Nails & Spa and Holly & Hudson Nail Lounge.
CNN’s chief national security correspondent Alex Marquardt, whose 2021 story on a military contractor led to a defamation suit loss in court, announced Monday he is leaving the network.
“Tough to say goodbye but it’s been an honor to work among the very best in the business,” Marquardt wrote on X. “Profound thank you to my comrades on the National Security team & the phenomenal teammates I’ve worked with in the US and abroad.”
Earlier this year, a Florida jury awarded $5 million to former CIA operative Zachary Young after a jury found he was defamed in a November 2021 report by Marquardt on how Afghans were being charged thousands of dollars to be evacuated after the U.S. military withdrawal from their country.
After deliberations began on punitive damages, CNN attorneys reached an undisclosed settlement with Young.
A CNN representative declined to comment on Marquardt’s departure, calling it a personnel matter. One network insider who was not authorized to comment publicly said there was a feeling among many people at CNN that Marquardt had to go after the loss in court.
Marquardt has served as CNN’s chief national security correspondent since 2017. He was previously a foreign correspondent for ABC News.
Young lives in Vienna and has his business based in Florida. He was seeking $14,500 for getting people out of Afghanistan after the chaotic U.S. military withdrawal. He claimed his services were limited to corporate sponsors.
The business was described in Marqurdt’s report alongside interviews with Afghans who spoke about desperate efforts by people to escape, but they had no connection to Young.
Young’s suit said his inclusion in the story, which used the term “black market” in an on-screen banner, implied that his activity was criminal, even though Marquardt’s segment made no such charge. “Black market” was also used in the introduction of the report when it first ran on “The Lead With Jake Tapper,” other CNN programs and the network’s website and social media accounts.
CNN lawyers argued that the term “black market” was used to describe an unregulated activity, even though the dictionary definition describes it as illegal.
Young claimed the story destroyed his reputation and ability to earn a living — driving his annual income from $350,000 to zero — and caused severe emotional and psychological distress.
More than 520 additional former rugby players have joined a concussion lawsuit against the sport’s authorities, according to the law firm bringing the case.
Rylands Garth says there are now more than 1,100 former players involved, with 784 from rugby union and 319 from rugby league.
Steve Thompson, Mark Regan and Phil Vickery – part of England’s 2003 Rugby World Cup-winning squad – former Wales stars Gavin Henson, Colin Charvis and Ryan Jones and England and British and Lions scrum-half Harry Ellis are among those seeking damages from World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union.
In November, former British and Irish Lions duo Lee Byrne and Phil Greening were confirmed to have joined the concussion lawsuit.
The former players claim the governing bodies were negligent in failing to take reasonable action to protect them from serious brain injuries.
A similar action is being taken against the Rugby Football League (RFL) and the British Amateur Rugby League Association (BARLA).
“Players continue to play almost all-year round, with many elite players soon to embark on extremely physical summer tours across the rugby world. We will continue to fight for justice for those who gave so much to the game,” a Rylands Garth spokesperson said.
Binance Founder Changpeng Zhao thanked the SEC Chairman Paul Atkins and the Trump team for “pushing back against regulation by enforcement.”
The SEC and Binance have filed a joint motion to end a nearly two-year legal dispute, marking yet another backdown in the agency’s dealings with crypto firms.
SEC Chair Paul Atkins, a former crypto lobbyist, has taken a much softer stance than his predecessor, Gary Gensler. It sends a message that the United States is open for crypto business, enhancing the industry’s potential to innovate and build without the risk of legal retaliation.
This vibe shift has been a driving force behind the recent crypto price rally, and the latest SEC settlement indicates that the trend isn’t slowing down. With that in mind, investors have real opportunity to profit if they successfully identify the best crypto to buy. So here are our top picks.
BTC Bull Token
BTC Bull Token is a Bitcoin-themed meme coin that pays real Bitcoin rewards. It will monitor Bitcoin’s price and run airdrops at key milestones. The first will occur when Bitcoin reaches $150K, and the second will happen when it hits $200K.
JD Vance recently spoke at the Bitcoin 2025 conference and said he expects the number of Americans owning Bitcoin to double from 50 million to 100 million in the near future. BTC Bull Token is actively working toward increasing Bitcoin ownership, which is why it could be a smart buy.
The project is currently undergoing a presale, which has raised over $6 million to date, indicating substantial market interest.
The project also has a staking mechanism that currently provides a 62% APY. Moreover, $BTCBULL has a built-in burn mechanism that will destroy a portion of the token’s total supply at key Bitcoin milestones. The first will be at $125K, and then with $50K increases afterward.
With a meme coin allure and innovative community reward features and tokenomics, everything is in place for $BTCBULL to thrive this year.
BNB
BNB is a top-four cryptocurrency by market cap and the most direct way to capitalize on the recent news. With the Binance-SEC legal battle ending, Binance will enjoy greater freedom to operate, and that could involve expanding its BNB operations.
For the uninitiated, BNB is the native coin to Binance’s decentralized blockchain, BNB Chain.
BNB also unlocks exclusive benefits on the Binance platform, such as trading fee discounts and higher staking yields. We could well see Binance deepen BNB’s in-app utility thanks to the SEC dropping its lawsuit.
Similar to many other crypto projects, regulatory concerns have troubled Binance in recent years. However, this is finally an opportunity for the project to build without restriction, which could significantly benefit the BNB price.
Solaxy
Solaxy is building the world’s first Solana layer 2 blockchain. Solana is another cryptocurrency that the Gary Gensler’s SEC deemed a security; however, that definition has been dropped under Atkins.
In fact, Solana has been embraced by the Trump administration, having even been added into the US’s newfound crypto stockpile.
While this positions Solana for growth, shrewd investors may buy Solaxy instead. Its layer 2 blockchain tackles Solana’s congestion issue, which leads to longer wait times and increased rates of transaction failures in periods of peak network activity.
🚨 28 Days Remain 🚨
In just 28 days, the Solaxy pre-sale will end, but that is not all.
Announcing for the first time is Solaxy’s Igniter Protocol, where $SOLX holders will be able to create and launch their very own Tokens.
The project is undergoing a presale where it has raised a whopping $42 million so far.
In recent weeks, Solaxy has made several major announcements, including a native DEX, a token launchpad, and the end to its presale in 17 days. All of this is culminating into a sense of FOMO, which is causing the Solaxy presale raise to soar.
However, with a promising use case and growing momentum, there’s every chance that this translates into the $SOLX price rallying once it hits exchanges.
XRP
While not directly related to the recent Binance-SEC news, XRP also experienced its own version of this a few weeks ago when the SEC dropped its long-standing lawsuit against Ripple Labs.
The next bull market rally will be the first time since 2020 that XRP has been able to climb without an overhanging lawsuit – that could result in explosive gains.
It’s no secret that XRP is a fan favourite cryptocurrency; its goal of being a cross-border payment solution for banks and institutions is surprisingly popular with retail investors.
With the lawsuit out of the way, investors may now purchase XRP with more confidence. This could generate bigger liquidity flows and cause the price to surge.
To understand the popularity of XRP, look back at its performance in November. It soared 5X and added $120 billion to its market cap in one month after Donald Trump won the US presidential election.
SPX6900
SPX6900 is another cryptocurrency with a strong community, but it’s not trying to improve the current financial system; it’s trying to replace it.
The project is a meme coin centered around the theory of “late stage capitalism,” an ideology that some people describe as financial nihilism. Asset prices are rising, and so is the average age of first-time home buyers. Younger people are struggling to make ends meet in the traditional financial world, so many are choosing not to participate in it. That’s partly why crypto and meme coins are so popular.
SPX6900 is a meme coin addressing the amplifying ramifications of late-stage capitalism, explaining that the project “symbolizes the complexity and vastness of today’s interconnected financial systems. It forces us to question what qualifies as “market-leading” in an era of exponential growth and memeification .”
It’s a project that seeks to serve the ever-increasing population of economically disgruntled individuals, promising them a pathway to prosperity and riches outside of traditional investment principles.
While most cryptocurrencies have dipped this week, SPX6900 has gained 25%. It’s also up by a whopping 94% this month, signifying real market appeal.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not provide financial advice. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile, and the market can be unpredictable. Always perform thorough research before making any cryptocurrency-related decisions.
California on Wednesday joined 15 other states filing suit against the National Science Foundation and its acting director, alleging the agency has illegally terminated millions of dollars in grants and imposed new fees that have ended or crippled research vital to health, the economy and the advancement of knowledge.
The Trump administration has defended its actions as both legal and necessary to align the NSF with the president’s priorities.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, specifically targets the science foundation for “terminating grants for scientific research that seeks to promote and understand diversity in higher education and the workforce,” according to a statement from California Atty. General Rob Bonta.
The suit alleges that the NSF’s actions are illegally arbitrary and capricious and violate federal law on the management and use of federal funding.
Bonta’s office asserted that between 1995 and 2017, the number of women in science and engineering occupations, or with science or engineering degrees, doubled with help from federal support; minorities, meanwhile, went from representing about 15% in the occupations to about 35%.
The suit also seeks to overturn the Trump administration’s 15% cap on indirect costs related to research, which universities say are critical to carrying out their work. Such indirect costs include maintaining lab space, keeping the temperature controlled and the proper handling and disposal of biological, chemical and biochemical materials.
Like other key federal agencies, the National Science Foundation has been in turmoil since Trump took office in January — undergoing across-the-board funding cuts, layoffs and reorganization as well as apparent ideological litmus tests for research, sweeping grant terminations and a funding freeze on grant applications.
The Trump administration has fired back at critics.
Earlier this month Michael Kratsios, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, criticized diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in federally funded research, calling them “close-minded” in a speech before the National Academy of Sciences in Washington.
Kratsios also called for a reduction of “red tape” in scientific research, the online news site FedScoop reported. He said there is a “crisis of confidence in scientists” that comes from fears that political biases are impacting research.
Trump officials also have repeatedly maintained that the federal government is rife with waste and fraud.
The federal actions have come at extreme cost, according to Bonta.
“President Trump wants to make America’s universities second tier with his backwards efforts to slash research funding that has kept us on the cutting edge of science and innovation,” Bonta said. “For more than 50 years, Congress has expressly authorized the National Science Foundation to train up the next generation of talent and invest in the infrastructure necessary to keep our position as a global leader” in science, technology, engineering and math.
“With President Trump’s latest round of indiscriminate funding cuts, America is poised to fall behind its competitors at a critical moment in the global technology race. We’re suing to stop him,” Bonta said.
In California, billions of dollars are at risk across the California State University, University of California and public community college systems.
“Many innovations — like the internet, GPS, and MRI technology — trace their origins to research initially funded by NSF. Without NSF funding, many California colleges and universities will be forced to substantially reduce or stop altogether potentially groundbreaking programs and research projects,” according to Bonta’s office.
Terminated NSF grants, for instance, include a five-year, $3-million project, “Computational Research for Equity in the Legal System.” This study examined crime data for patterns of racial bias while also looking at police misconduct and eviction policies, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
Canceled UC Berkeley grants included projects on electoral systems and two on environmental science education.
The NSF has also told staff to screen grant proposals for “topics or activities that may not be in alignment with agency priorities” that had shifted under the Trump administration, the journal Nature reported.
The lawsuit lays out a wide range of benefits and goals of the federal funding.
“From developing AI technology that predicts weather patterns to protect communities, to developing sustainable solutions for environmental and economic challenges, to making power grids more sustainable, NSF-funded research at American universities ensures this nation’s status as a global leader in scientific innovation,” according to the lawsuit.
The other states involved in the litigation are Hawaii, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Washington.
The pattern of federal cuts and turmoil related to research also is playing out with the National Institutes of Health. And California also is party to a lawsuit over cuts to these grants.
Tara Kerin, a project scientist who works in pediatric infectious disease research at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, said that the funding cuts at the National Science Foundation echoed similar ones made at the National Institutes of Health.
That, she said, makes her “very nervous about the future of science and research.”
Kerin, whose work has partly focused on HIV prevention and detection in young adults, was funded by NIH grants — until they were cut this spring.
