legal

Rights groups and legal experts are calling for Israel to be investigated over the ‘double-tap’ attack on Gaza’s Nasser Hospital which Israel called a ‘mishap’, after killing 21 Palestinians including journalists, medics and rescue workers.

Elon Musk on Monday ramped up his legal feud with OpenAI as his companies filed a new lawsuit against OpenAI and Apple accusing both of anticompetitive behavior in the artificial intelligence industry in a growing clash of tech titans.

Apple and OpenAI announced a partnership last year that would allow Apple customers to connect with OpenAI’s chatbot, ChatGPT, on iPhones. Musk’s social media firm X and artificial intelligence company X.AI LLC say that the deal has hindered their ability to compete and has locked up markets to maintain what they describe as Apple and OpenAI’s monopolies.

“Plaintiffs bring this suit to stop Defendants from perpetrating their anticompetitive scheme and to recover billions in damages,” according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Texas on Monday. Musk’s companies, Bastrop, Texas-based X and Palo Alto-based xAI, are seeking a permanent injunction against Apple and OpenAI and more than $1 billion in damages.

The lawsuit adds to a long-running fight between Musk and OpenAI’s Chief Executive Sam Altman. Musk was an early investor in OpenAI but later left its board and started a rival AI business, xAI. Musk has an ongoing lawsuit against OpenAI and Altman, accusing them of fraud and breach of contract over OpenAI’s efforts to change its corporate structure.

“This latest filing is consistent with Mr Musk’s ongoing pattern of harassment,” OpenAI said in a statement.

Musk companies’ lawsuit claims ChatGPT has at least an 80% market share in the generative AI chatbot market, whereas xAI’s chatbot Grok has just a few percentage points in market share.

“As a result of Apple and OpenAI’s exclusive arrangement, ChatGPT is the only AI chatbot that benefits from billions of user prompts originating from hundreds of millions of iPhones,” according to xAI’s lawsuit. “This makes it hard for competitors of ChatGPT’s generative AI chatbot and super apps powered by generative AI chatbots to scale and innovate.”

xAI has asked to integrate Grok directly with Apple’s software ecosystem, iOS, but hasn’t been allowed to do so, Musk’s companies said in their lawsuit. While users can access other AI chatbots on iPhones by using a web browser or downloading an AI chatbot’s app, “those options do not provide the same level of functionality, usability, integration, or access to user prompts as ChatGPT’s first-party integration with Apple,” the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also accuses Apple of deprioritizing the AI chatbot apps of OpenAI’s competitors in the App Store.

Apple did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment on the lawsuit.

Earlier this month, Musk said on X that he planned to take legal action against Apple, causing a sparring match on the social media platform between him and OpenAI’s Altman.

“Apple is behaving in a manner that makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store, which is an unequivocal antitrust violation,” Musk wrote on Aug. 11.

Altman later posted on X, “This is a remarkable claim given what I have heard alleged that Elon does to manipulate X to benefit himself and his own companies and harm his competitors and people he doesn’t like.”

Apple previously told Bloomberg that it collaborates with many developers “to increase app visibility in rapidly evolving categories” and features thousands of apps in charts, algorithmic recommendations and curated lists by experts using objective criteria.

“The App Store is designed to be fair and free of bias,” Apple told Bloomberg.

Apple has also faced backlash and criticism from some developers and the Department of Justice over the way it operates its App Store. Last year the DOJ sued Apple, accusing it of engaging in practices that prevented other companies from offering apps that compete with Apple’s offerings.

At the time, Apple said that if the government’s lawsuit was successful, it would hurt its ability to create the type of technology people expect from Apple “where hardware, software, and services intersect.”

“It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology,” Apple said.

Staff writer Queenie Wong and Editorial Library Director Cary Schneider contributed to this report.

Aug. 21 (UPI) — Acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba lacks legal authority to continue prosecuting federal cases in New Jersey, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Court for Middle Pennsylvania Matthew Branns said Habba, 41, is unqualified for the position and should be disqualified from ongoing cases in New Jersey, The New York Times reported.

“Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” Brann ruled following a hearing last week.

Habba formerly was President Donald Trump‘s personal attorney and a campaign spokeswoman before the president appointed her interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey in March.

That appointment ended July 1, but Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi relied on federal loopholes to declare Habba the acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey instead of its interim federal prosecutor, Fox News reported.

Brann said the semantics move by Trump and Bondi is not lawful, and Habba has lacked legal standing to continue serving as New Jersey’s acting U.S. attorney since July 1.

Two defendants in federal cases before the U.S. District Court of New Jersey filed challenges to Habba’s authority based on the actions taken by the president and the attorney general.

Former President Barack Obama nominated Brann to the Middle Pennsylvania District Court in 2012, and the judge paused his decision to enable the Trump administration to appeal his ruling.

The Justice Department has said it will challenge Brann’s decision, which also might affect similarly appointed U.S. attorneys in other federal districts, according to CNN.

Whether his decision stands or is overturned, Brann said a federal appellate court must make a determination quickly to avoid disruption to federal cases.

A panel of federal judges in July refused to extend Habba’s position and appointed federal prosecutor Desiree Grace to replace her.

Bondi then fired Grace and named Habba the district’s acting U.S. attorney, which triggered the two challenges to her authority and has slowed the rate at which federal cases are argued in New Jersey.

Aug. 21 (UPI) — With a preventive detention order issued by Peru’s judiciary against former President Martín Vizcarra, the country now has all of its former presidents jailed simultaneously on corruption and other serious charges — an unprecedented situation worldwide.

Former President Martín Vizcarra entered Barbadillo prison in Lima on Aug. 13 to serve five months of preventive detention while awaiting trial on corruption allegations stemming from his time as regional governor of Moquegua between 2011 and 2014. He is accused of taking more than $600,000 in bribes linked to two public works contracts.

Although the case does not involve his time as head of state, Vizcarra becomes the fifth former Peruvian president sent to prison in the past 18 years. Barbadillo prison already holds Pedro Castillo, Alejandro Toledo and Ollanta Humala, and was first adapted to house Alberto Fujimori in facilities built specifically for a former president.

“Peru is clearly facing a legitimacy crisis in its political class, one with deep roots that reinforces the public perception that corruption permeates every level of power,” said Carlos Escaffi, a professor of international relations at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru.

Within this context, Escaffi pointed to the role of Peru’s judiciary, particularly the Public Ministry, “which has shown no hesitation in bringing the accused to trial, something that can be seen as progress in the fight against corruption.”

In 2009, former President Alberto Fujimori was sentenced to 25 years in prison, mainly for crimes tied to human rights violations and corruption during his 1990 to 2000 presidency.

After serving more than 15 years, he was granted a humanitarian pardon in 2017 for health reasons, though the measure was annulled and reinstated several times before he was freed for good in 2023 under an order from Peru’s Constitutional Court. He died in September 2024.

In the case of Alan García, who twice served as president, he died by suicide in 2019 as police tried to arrest him on corruption allegations tied to Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht, which paid massive bribes across Latin America.

Among the other former presidents held in Barbadillo prison, Alejandro Toledo is serving a 20-year sentence for collusion and money laundering related to Odebrecht bribes, while Ollanta Humala is serving a sentence for illicit contributions to his presidential campaigns.

Pedro Castillo has been in preventive detention since late 2022 on corruption allegations during his presidency and for attempting a failed coup.

Martín Vizcarra became president of Peru in 2018 after then-President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski resigned rather than face impeachment by Congress. In 2022, Vizcarra was placed under house arrest. He is currently free with restrictions — barred from leaving Peru — and faces money laundering and collusion charges, though no final sentence has been issued.

As for current President Dina Boluarte, Peru’s Constitutional Court ruled Tuesday in favor of a petition from the executive branch and ordered all criminal investigations and impeachment proceedings against her suspended until her term ends on July 28, 2026.

The cases — including deaths during protests in 2022 and 2023, the so-called “Rolexgate” scandal over alleged illicit enrichment, and accusations of abandoning office — can resume only after she leaves the presidency.

The 2020 presidential election is history, but a legal dispute over Fox News’ reporting on President Trump’s false claims of voter fraud is heating up.

A motion for summary judgment by voting equipment company Smartmatic filed Tuesday in New York Supreme Court laid out in detail how phony allegations that it manipulated votes to swing the election to Joe Biden were amplified on Fox News.

The motion also described how the Fox News Media hosts who are defendants in the suit — the late Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business — were allegedly committed to helping Trump prove his fraud theories so he could remain in office.

“I work so hard for the President and the party,” Pirro wrote in a text to Ronna McDaniel, then chair of the Republican National Committee.

Pirro left Fox News in May to become U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Smartmatic is suing Fox News for $2.7 billion in damages, claiming that the network’s airing of the false statements hurt the London-based company’s ability to expand its business in the U.S.

Fox News settled a similar suit from Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million in 2023.

The motion alleged that on-air hosts repeated the fraud claims even though executives and producers were told they were false.

The Fox News research department, known as the “Brainroom,” allegedly informed network producers that Smartmatic’s role in the 2020 election was limited to Los Angeles County and that the company’s software was not used in Dominion voting machines, another false claim made on the air.

Fox News maintains the network’s reporting on President Trump’s false claims were newsworthy and protected by the 1st Amendment. But part of the company’s legal strategy has been focused on minimizing the damage claims.

Fox News has asserted that any problems Smartmatic has experienced in attracting new business are rooted not in its reporting but in the federal investigation into the company’s activities with overseas governments.

Last year, Smartmatic’s founder, Roger Alejandro Piñate Martinez, and two other company officials were indicted by the U.S. attorney’s office and charged with bribing Philippine officials in order to get voting machine contracts in the country in 2016.

While the Trump camp’s assertions that the election was fixed were not believed throughout Fox News and parent company Fox Corp., the conservative-leaning network gave continued to give them oxygen to keep its audience tuned in, the motion alleged.

The motion described a “pivot” that occurred on Nov. 8, 2020, when then-Fox News Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan asked Fox News Media Chief Executive Suzanne Scott to address the decline in the network’s ratings after Biden was declared the winner of the election. The network also looked at research to evaluate why viewers were leaving.

“The conclusion reached based on performance analytics: give the audience more election fraud,” the court document stated.

Such thinking, the filing said, permeated the company, already in a panic over losing viewers to right-leaning network Newsmax. The upstart outlet saw a ratings surge after Biden’s win due to its unwavering support of Trump’s claims.

“Think about how incredible our ratings would be if Fox went ALL in on STOP THE STEAL,” Fox News host Jesse Watters said in a text to his colleague Greg Gutfeld.

Throughout November and December 2020, the three hosts named in the suit, Dobbs, Pirro and Bartiromo, repeatedly featured Trump’s attorneys Rudolph Giuliani and Sidney Powell as guests. They spread the falsehoods that Smartmatic software was used in Dominion voting machines and altered millions of votes.

Smartmatic’s work in Los Angeles during the 2020 election was meant to be an entry point for the company to expand its domestic business. The company’s defamation suit claims that Fox News obliterated those efforts by presenting the false fraud claims.

But Fox News believes that issues with Smartmatic’s $282-million contract with Los Angeles County could help advance its case.

On Aug. 1, federal prosecutors filing a legal brief alleging that taxpayer funds from the county went into a slush fund held by a shell company to help pay for its illegal activities.

Federal prosecutors handling the case involving Smartmatic’s business in the Philippines said they plan to detail similar alleged schemes out of L.A. County and Venezuela to show that the bribery fits a larger pattern.

Fox News attorneys have filed a brief asking for county records that they believe will help bolster their case. The network is also expected to try to get the Smartmatic indictments in front of the court to raise doubts about the company’s reputation.

A Smartmatic representative said Fox News’ records request is a diversion tactic.

“Fox lies and when caught they lie again to distract,” a Smartmatic representative said in a statement. “Fox’s latest filing is just another attempt to divert attention from its long-standing campaign of falsehoods and defamation against Smartmatic.”

The company added that it abided with the law in Los Angeles County and “every jurisdiction where we operate.”

Smartmatic’s Tuesday court filing also included information that contradicted public statements Fox News made at the time.

The document alleged that Fox News fired political analyst Chris Stirewalt and longtime Washington bureau executives Bill Sammon for their involvement in calling the state of Arizona for Biden on election night. The early call of the close result in the state upset the Trump camp and alienated his supporters.

At the time, Fox News said Stirewalt departed as part of a reorganization and Sammon retired.

But the motion said Rupert Murdoch himself signed off on the decision to sever Stirewalt and Sammon from the company in an effort to assuage angry viewers who defected.

The motion cited a communication from Dana Perino, co-host of Fox News show “The Five,” describing a phone call with Stirewalt after his dismissal.

“I explained to him — you were right, you didn’t cave, and you got fired for doing the right thing,” Perino said.

Both Sammon and Stirewalt now work in the Washington bureau of NewsNation, the cable news network owned by Nexstar Media Group.

If a major hurricane approaches Central Florida this season, Maria knows it’s dangerous to stay inside her wooden, trailer-like home. In past storms, she evacuated to her sister’s sturdier house. If she couldn’t get there, a shelter set up at the local high school served as a refuge if needed.

But with accelerating detentions and deportations of immigrants across her community of Apopka, 20 miles northwest of Orlando, Maria, an agricultural worker from Mexico without permanent U.S. legal status, doesn’t know if those options are safe. All risk encountering immigration enforcement agents.

“They can go where they want,” said Maria, 50, who insisted the Associated Press not use her last name for fear of detention. “There is no limit.”

Natural disasters have long posed singular risks for people in the United States without permanent legal status. But with the arrival of peak Atlantic hurricane season, immigrants and their advocates say President Donald Trump’s robust immigration enforcement agenda has increased the danger.

Places considered neutral spaces by immigrants such as schools, hospitals and emergency management agencies are now suspect, and advocates say agreements by local law enforcement to collaborate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement make them more vulnerable and compel a choice between being physically safe and avoiding detention.

“Am I going to risk the storm or risk endangering my family at the shelter?” said Dominique O’Connor, an organizer at the Farmworker Association of Florida. “You’re going to meet enforcement either way.”

For O’Connor and for many immigrants, it’s about storms. But people without permanent legal status could face these decisions anywhere that extreme heat, wildfires or other severe weather could necessitate evacuating, getting supplies or even seeking medical care.

Federal and state agencies have said little on whether immigration enforcement would be suspended in a disaster. It wouldn’t make much difference to Maria: “With all we’ve lived, we’ve lost trust.”

New policies deepen concerns

Efforts by Trump’s Republican administration to exponentially expand immigration enforcement capacity mean many of the agencies active in disaster response are increasingly entangled in immigration enforcement.

Since January, hundreds of law enforcement agencies have signed 287(g) agreements, allowing them to perform certain immigration enforcement actions. Most of the agreements are in hurricane-prone Florida and Texas.

Florida’s Division of Emergency Management oversees building the state’s new detention facilities, like the one called “Alligator Alcatraz” in the Everglades. Federal Emergency Management Agency funds are being used to build additional detention centers around the country, and the Department of Homeland Security temporarily reassigned some FEMA staff to assist ICE.

The National Guard, often seen passing out food and water after disasters, has been activated to support U.S. Customs and Border Protection operations and help at detention centers.

These dual roles can make for an intimidating scene during a disaster. After floods in July, more than 2,100 personnel from 20 state agencies aided the far-reaching response effort in Central Texas, along with CBP officers. Police controlled entry into hard-hit areas. Texas Department of Public Safety and private security officers staffed entrances to disaster recovery centers set up by FEMA.

That unsettled even families with permanent legal status, said Rae Cardenas, executive director of Doyle Community Center in Kerrville, Texas. Cardenas helped coordinate with the Mexican Consulate in San Antonio to replace documents for people who lived behind police checkpoints.

“Some families are afraid to go get their mail because their legal documents were washed away,” Cardenas said.

In Florida, these policies could make people unwilling to drive evacuation roads. Traffic stops are a frequent tool of detention, and Florida passed a law in February criminalizing entry into the state by those without legal status, though a judge temporarily blocked it.

There may be fewer places to evacuate now that public shelters, often guarded by police or requiring ID to enter, are no longer considered “protected areas” by DHS. The agency in January rescinded a policy of President Joe Biden, a Democrat, to avoid enforcement in places like schools, medical facilities and emergency response sites.

The fears extend even into disaster recovery. On top of meeting law enforcement at FEMA recovery centers, mixed-status households that qualify for help from the agency might hesitate to apply for fear of their information being accessed by other agencies, said Esmeralda Ledezma, communications associate with the Houston-based nonprofit Woori Juntos. “Even if you have the right to federal aid, you’re afraid to be punished for it,” Ledezma said.

In past emergencies, DHS has put out messaging stating it would suspend immigration enforcement. The agency’s policy now is unclear.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in an email that CBP had not issued any guidance “because there have been no natural disasters affecting border enforcement.” She did not address what directions were given during CBP’s activation in the Texas floods or whether ICE would be active during a disaster.

Florida’s Division of Emergency Management did not respond to questions related to its policies toward people without legal status. Texas’ Division of Emergency Management referred The Associated Press to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s office, which did not respond.

Building local resilience is a priority

In spite of the crackdown, local officials in some hurricane-prone areas are expanding outreach to immigrant populations. “We are trying to move forward with business as usual,” said Gracia Fernandez, language access coordinator for Alachua County in Central Florida.

The county launched a program last year to translate and distribute emergency communications in Spanish, Haitian Creole and other languages. Now staffers want to spread the word that county shelters won’t require IDs, but since they’re public spaces, Fernandez acknowledged there’s not much they can do if ICE comes.

“There is still a risk,” she said. “But we will try our best to help people feel safe.”

As immigrant communities are pushed deeper into the shadows, more responsibility falls on nonprofits, and communities themselves, to keep each other safe.

Hope Community Center in Apopka has pushed local officials to commit to not requiring IDs at shelters and sandbag distribution points. During an evacuation, the facility becomes an alternative shelter and a command center, from which staffers translate and send out emergency communications in multiple languages. For those who won’t leave their homes, staffers do door-to-door wellness checks, delivering food and water.

“It’s a very grassroots, underground operation,” said Felipe Sousa Lazaballet, the center’s executive director.

Preparing the community is challenging when it’s consumed by the daily crises wrought by detentions and deportations, Sousa Lazaballet said.

“All of us are in triage mode,” he said. “Every day there is an emergency, so the community is not necessarily thinking about hurricane season yet. That’s why we have to have a plan.”

Angueira writes for the Associated Press.

MIAMI — A federal judge on Monday considered whether detainees at a temporary immigrant detention center in the Florida Everglades have been denied their legal rights.

In the second of two lawsuits challenging practices at the facility known as “Alligator Alcatraz,” civil rights attorneys sought a preliminary injunction to ensure that detainees at the site have confidential access to their lawyers, which they say hasn’t happened. Florida officials dispute that claim.

The civil rights attorneys also wanted U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz to identify an immigration court that has jurisdiction over the detention center so that petitions can be filed for the detainees’ bond or release. The attorneys say that hearings for their cases have been routinely canceled in federal Florida immigration courts by judges who say they don’t have jurisdiction over the detainees in the Everglades.

At the start of Monday’s hearing, government attorneys said they would designate the immigration court at the Krome North Service Processing Center in the Miami area as having jurisdiction over the detention center in the Everglades in an effort to address some of the civil rights attorneys’ constitutional concerns. The judge told the government attorneys that he didn’t expect them to change that designation without good reason.

But before delving into the core issues of the detainees’ rights, Ruiz wanted to hear about whether the lawsuit was filed in the proper jurisdiction in Miami. The state and federal government defendants have argued that even though the isolated airstrip where the facility was built is owned by Miami-Dade County, Florida’s Southern District is the wrong venue since the detention center is located in neighboring Collier County, which is in the state’s Middle District.

The hearing ended without the judge making an immediate ruling. Ruiz suggested that the case against the federal defendants might be appropriate for the Southern District, but the case against the state defendants might be better in the Middle District.

Court for the Southern District is held in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Pierce, Key West, and West Palm Beach, while Middle District courthouses are located in Tampa, Fernandina, Fort Myers, Jacksonville, Live Oak, Ocala, Orlando and St. Petersburg.

All parties have agreed that if the complaints against the state are moved to another venue, then the complaints against the federal government should be moved as well. It wasn’t immediately clear how Ruiz, a Trump appointee, handing the case off to another judge would affect the ultimate outcome of the case.

The hearing over legal access comes as another federal judge in Miami considers whether construction and operations at the facility should be halted indefinitely because federal environmental rules weren’t followed. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams on Aug. 7 ordered a 14-day halt to additional construction at the site while witnesses testified at a hearing that wrapped up last week. She has said she plans to issue a ruling before the order expires later this week.

Meanwhile, Gov. Ron DeSantis announced last week that his administration was preparing to open a second immigration detention facility dubbed “Deportation Depot” at a state prison in north Florida. DeSantis justified building the second detention center by saying President Trump’s administration needs the additional capacity to hold and deport more immigrants.

The state of Florida has disputed claims that “Alligator Alcatraz” detainees have been unable to meet with their attorneys. The state’s lawyers said that since July 15, when videoconferencing started at the facility, the state has granted every request for a detainee to meet with an attorney, and in-person meetings started July 28. The first detainees arrived at the beginning of July.

But the civil rights attorneys said that even if lawyers have been scheduled to meet with their clients at the detention center, it hasn’t been in private or confidential, and it is more restrictive than at other immigration detention facilities. They said scheduling delays and an unreasonable advance-notice requirement have hindered their ability to meet with the detainees, thereby violating their constitutional rights.

Civil rights attorneys said officers are going cell to cell to pressure detainees into signing voluntary removal orders before they’re allowed to consult their attorneys, and some detainees have been deported even though they didn’t have final removal orders. Along with the spread of a respiratory infection and rainwater flooding their tents, the circumstances have fueled a feeling of desperation among detainees, the attorneys wrote in a court filing.

The judge promised a quick decision.

Fischer and Schneider write for the Associated Press.

Reach Screen Time spoke exclusively to Mudtown stars Tom Cullen and Erin Richards

A gripping new TV drama is set to hit our screens this month, promising viewers a captivating tale brimming with tension and conflict, reports Wales Online. This comes as audiences are binging another crime drama.

Mudtown, set in Newport, Wales, centres around magistrate Claire Lewis Jones (portrayed by Erin Richards), who finds herself in a dilemma when her childhood friend’s daughter is accused of arson.

Claire’s personal and professional worlds collide as she attempts to preside over the case. Adding to the complexity, her ex-lover and local gangster Saint Pete (Tom Cullen) re-enters her life, seeking her assistance in court.

She finds herself torn between divided loyalties and ensuring justice is served.

Mudtown was co-created by Keeping Faith actor and writer Hannah Daniels along with real-life magistrate Georgia Lee.

In an exclusive chat with Reach Screen Time, lead stars Cullen and Richards shared their thoughts on joining the series.

READ MORE: ‘Fantastic’ crime drama fans say will ‘tear your heart out’ is streaming for freeREAD MORE: New crime drama branded ‘exceptional’ now available to stream for free

Cullen confessed he’d been extremely hesitant about accepting the role of crime boss Saint Pete, despite having portrayed real-life gangster Johnny Palmer in BBC’s The Gold.

He revealed: “On a personal level, Pete is a character that I’ve never really got to play before and when they offered it to me, I was absolutely terrified and confused as to why they wanted me to play this character.

“And I was absolutely terrified of the prospect of playing because I thought it was way beyond my reach, capabilities as an actor and for that reason, also, I decided to do it, to scare myself.”

Explaining his decision to join Mudtown, Cullen said: “Lots attracted me to the show. Just on a script-level, I found it really interesting.

“I thought that its themes really resonated with me and the socio-political aspect to it about the choices we make and what choices do we have when we grow up in certain areas, and the different paths a certain decision can make, I found that really interesting. I also thought that the characters were so complex.”

He revealed he was also attracted to the project due to the opportunity to work in his native Wales, which he rarely got to do and “work with friends” he’d “known for years”, describing it as a “joyous experience”.

The Crown and Gotham star Richards confessed she had similar motivations for joining Mudtown, admitting she was also drawn to the chance to work in Wales and be near her family.

“It was such a dream and it was the first job I did since having my son, who is now two-and-a-half, but was one, and just the ability to come home every night and see him and sleep in my own bed, and travel to Newport which is somewhere I’ve never been before but obviously visited a lot,” she said.

Richards and Cullen have been friends for years after starring in a film together when they were just 16, which she confessed boosted their on-screen spark and transformed her acting.

The actress revealed: “I had a specific idea of who Claire was and I was playing her a certain way, and then when I would do the scenes with Tom, she would like change a little bit and I didn’t plan for that to happen.

“But I think just because of the history that Tom and I have and how much we know about each other, it really reflected how Claire and Saint Pete were together. It was a really dynamic we had as friends but also had as characters.”

The programme was filmed back-to-back in English and Welsh, like numerous Welsh productions including the aforementioned Keeping Faith and The Light in the Hall.

Recording simultaneously in both languages meant the Welsh-speaking actors would begin in one tongue for a scene and then switch to the other language for the following scene depending on the take.

Richards confessed: “It was a real mind-bending thing at the beginning, but then halfway through I got used to it and my brain would just do it and click into place.”

The performer got ready for the part by observing magistrates courts in both Cardiff and Newport, discovering how it operated and acknowledged she was “surprised” that more programmes about the court hadn’t been created. Addressing the possibility of a second season, Richards teased: “I think the final episode, the final scene leaves it open to another series. I would love to do one. Cullen added: “I’d love to do one. We’ll see how it goes, fingers crossed.”

Mudtown is available on U&alibi from August 29 at 9pm, available on Sky, Virgin Media and NOW

KATIE Price is facing a new legal battle with all three of her ex-husbands.

Kieran Hayler, 38, and Alex Reid, 50, are said to be consulting lawyers in a bid to stop her explosive Sky documentary airing next year.

3

3

3

It comes after Katie’s ex Peter Andre accused her of making “baseless accusations“ against him, and claimed their children Princess and Junior have been in his care since 2018 ‘for their safety.’

Peter finally snapped after Katie moaned about being frozen out of her daughter Princess‘s blossoming career – and claimed that their kids live with both Pete and her.

He said: “Unfortunately, there are many more lies and baseless accusations that I have yet to address. Those will be dealt with in the coming months.”

Now Kieran and Alex are in contact via an intermediary after a tell-all documentary was announced.

A source told the Mirror: “They feel like they have been backed into a corner and have no choice. They just want her to stop trashing them, and can’t believe she is being given a platform.”

A spokesman for Kieran said: “We are keeping all our options open. I can confirm Alex Reid is on the same page.”

After Peter broke his 16-year silence on Katie, she spoke out in a statement via her rep.

A spokesman for the mum of five told The Sun: “Kate is in a much better and clear headspace and is at peace with the situation.

“This was in the past and she doesn’t feel the need to bring up tit for tat comments, but more importantly she’s dealing with this the right way and it’s now in her lawyers hands.

“Kate will no longer be gaslighted and bullied as she once was…”

Katie is currently dating MAFS star JJ Slater, but before this she had a long-term romance with Carl Woods. 

Before falling for Carl, Katie was engaged to fitness trainer Kris Boyson, 29, and before Kris she was married to Kieran. 

Katie married MMA fighter Alex in Las Vegas in February 2010 and before Alex there was Pete, who she met on I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here! in 2004. 

The pair soon got together and married in a lavish ceremony in September 2005 in Highclere Castle.

After Peter released his statement, Katie’s ex Kieran Hayler shared a cryptic post about “rising like a Phoenix” amid their public feud.

Kieran, 38, who was married to the former glamour model, 47, for five turbulent years before their divorce was finalised in March 2021, took to his Instagram to share a photo of the mythical bird.

President Trump struck an unusual deal with Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices that allows the companies to sell certain chips to China in exchange for giving the U.S. government a 15% cut of those sales.

But the unprecedented agreement also has raised concerns from politicians and legal experts over whether the deal is legal and would pose a national security threat.

Questions also linger about exactly how the deal, which was announced Monday, would work because the U.S. Constitution bars taxes on exports, although some experts said Trump could find a workaround.

The U.S. government might receive $3 billion from the revenue split if China’s demand for Nvidia’s H20 chip — which is less powerful than the company’s highest-end artificial intelligence chip — reaches $20 billion, according to a note from Bernstein Research.

“It ties the fate of this chip manufacturer in a very particular way to this administration that is quite rare,” said Julia Powles, a professor and executive director of the UCLA Institute for Technology, Law & Policy.

Trump’s agreement with the world’s most valuable company could put pressure on other tech companies and major exporters to strike similar deals with the U.S. government, but it’s still unclear what the implications will be internationally, she said.

The deal is the latest example of how tech companies are seeking to curry favor with the Trump administration, which has threatened to impose tariffs on semiconductor companies that don’t commit to investing in the United States.

Apple faced potential tariffs as well, but committed to investing $100 billion more in U.S. manufacturing after Trump criticized the company for expanding iPhone production in India.

Trump also placed restrictions in April around the export of certain AI chips, including Nvidia’s H20 and AMD’s MI308, over national security concerns.

He’s called for the resignation of Intel Chief Executive Lip-Bu Tan, who has faced scrutiny over his reported investments in Chinese companies, but changed his tune after meeting the executive this week.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers have criticized the idea that tech companies should split their sales with the U.S. government in exchange for export licenses that allow them to resume chip sales in China.

“Export controls are a frontline defense in protecting our national security, and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the Government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance its AI capabilities,” Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), the chair of the House Select Committee on China, said in a statement.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, (D-Ill.), a ranking member of that committee, said in a statement that the deal raises questions about its legality and how the funds will be used.

“The administration cannot simultaneously treat semiconductor exports as both a national security threat and a revenue opportunity,” he said. “By putting a price on our security concerns, we signal to China and our allies that American national security principles are negotiable for the right fee.”

The White House didn’t answer questions about the agreement. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday that “the legality of it, the mechanics of it, is still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce.”

On Monday, Trump defended the deal with Nvidia, stating that the H20 chips are “obsolete” and less powerful than the company’s more high-end Blackwell chip. At a news conference, Trump said he met with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and initially asked for a 20% revenue split but they came down to 15%.

“We negotiate a little deal,” Trump said. “So he’s selling a essentially old chip.” Trump’s remarks came after a report from the Financial Times over the weekend that Nvidia and AMD would pay 15% of their China chip revenue to the U.S. government. AMD didn’t respond to a request for comment.

An Nvidia spokesperson said in a statement that the company hasn’t shipped H20 chips to China for months but it hopes that easing export restrictions will “let America compete in China and worldwide.”

“America cannot repeat 5G and lose telecommunication leadership. America’s AI tech stack can be the world’s standard if we race.”

For Nvidia, the stakes are high. Huang said in a May interview with Stratechery, a newsletter and podcast, that the Chinese market is about $50 billion a year. Restricting H20 chip sales means that the company is walking away from profits that could be used to compete with China in the race to dominate AI.

Taylar Rajic, an associate fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said she’s skeptical that legal concerns would halt the arrangement because it’s unclear who would sue.

“I can’t identify who would bring that suit forward,” she said. “It wouldn’t be Nvidia because they’re the ones who negotiated this deal.”

Meanwhile, Chinese officials have their own fears that Nvidia’s chips could have location tracking or remote shutdown capabilities, though the company has denied those accusations.

“China obviously has its own concerns and its own national security considerations that it wants to take into account,” Rajic said. “It just depends on whether or not they want to buy it from us too.”

“A seismic legal confrontation between players and Fifa.”

The view of former Fulham midfielder-turned-lawyer Udo Onwere when asked to assess the significance of the compensation claim launched against Fifa this week on behalf of current and former professional footballers over transfer rules.

On Monday, Dutch foundation Justice for Players (JFP) said it had started a class action lawsuit against the sport’s world governing body, along with the football associations of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark.

It argues that 100,000 footballers playing in Europe since 2002 could have lost income as a result of “unlawful” Fifa regulations, and that “preliminary analysis” shows that damages could amount to several billion pounds.

The case is the result of last year’s ruling by the highest European court that Fifa regulations over some football transfers broke EU laws.

In October, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) found in favour of former Chelsea and Arsenal midfielder Lassana Diarra after he argued some of the rules restricted his freedom of movement and breached competition law, and sued Fifa.

“This class action could rewrite the rules governing player mobility across the global football industry” says Onwere, who is now a partner at law firm Bray and Krais.

“What distinguishes this case from previous skirmishes with the governing body is its sheer scale and complexity… The outcome of this litigation could usher in a new era of transfer regulations and governance – one where contractual stability is balanced with player autonomy.

“It could prove to be as transformational as the landmark 1995 Bosman ruling.”

Such a comparison is notable, because JFP is being advised by Diarra’s Belgian lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont, who also won the landmark 1995 case at the CJEU on behalf of ex-player Jean-Marc Bosman.

That ruling dramatically changed the sport, meaning footballers could choose to run down their contracts and move clubs on a free transfer, with teams no longer able to demand compensation for out-of-contract players.

Thirty years on, some now believe this latest case could result in players being able to terminate their own contracts, without paying compensation, before those deals come to an end.

BBC Sport has been told that Fifa has until the start of September to respond to the threat of legal action.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Monday that his office has spent more than $5 million fighting the Trump administration in court over the last six months, but saved the state nearly $170 billion.

“That means that for every one dollar we’ve been given by the legislature and the governor from special session funding to do this work — and we are very grateful for that funding — we’ve returned $33,600 for the state,” Bonta said during an afternoon news conference alongside Gov. Gavin Newsom. “Just to put it in perspective, if you told a Wall Street investor they’d get a $33,000 return on every one dollar invested, they would trip over themselves to get in on that deal.”

Bonta’s calculations are based on a mountain of litigation his office has filed against the administration since President Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, including 37 lawsuits — many alongside other liberal-led states — and 47 amicus briefs backing other litigants’ lawsuits against the administration.

The vast majority of the savings Bonta claimed were the result of one particular lawsuit, in which California and other states successfully challenged a Trump administration effort to freeze trillions of dollars in federal funding to the states — including what Bonta said was $168 billion for California alone.

“In his first week in office, President Trump went after a full-third of California’s budget — and we went to court less than 24 hours later and stopped him in his tracks,” Bonta said.

Bonta also cited court orders his office has won protecting $7 billion in transportation funding to maintain roads, highways, bridges and other infrastructure; $939 million in education funding for after-school and summer learning and teacher preparation; $972 million in healthcare funding for identifying, tracking and addressing infectious diseases, ensuring immunizations and modernizing public health infrastructure; and $300 million for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. However, it has previously derided California’s efforts to block Trump’s agenda in the courts. Last month, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told The Times that Newsom was “destroying” the state and that Trump has been trying to “step in and save Californians from Gavin’s incompetence.”

The state legislature during a special session in February allocated Bonta’s office an extra $25 million to staff up and fight Trump in court. As part of that allocation, the legislature required that Bonta provide regular reports on how the money is spent. Bonta and Newsom’s news conference Monday followed the first of those reports being submitted to lawmakers.

Bonta said much of the $5 million his office has spent to date was used to pay for in-house attorneys and paralegals, and that none has been spent on outside counsel. He also said that, given the pace and scope of the work to date, his office will eventually need more funding.

“We’re grateful for the $25 million and the ability to draw down that $5 million so far. We do think we will need more going into the future, and I’m hopeful that through the conversations that we have — talking about what we would use it for, our success so far, what the continuing threats are down the road — that we’ll get to a place that will work for everybody,” Bonta said.

Newsom, citing Bonta’s financially consequential wins in court already, promised he’ll get the funding.

“Let me assure you, he will not be in need of resources to do his job,” Newsom said. “This report only highlights why I feel very confident in his ability to execute and to deliver results for the people of this state.”

Bonta’s report outlined 36 lawsuits his office had brought against the Trump administration through Wednesday. Those lawsuits challenged Trump’s efforts to slash the federal workforce, cut healthcare funding and research, dismantle the Department of Education and reduce education funding. They also challenged Trump administration efforts to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and restrict voting access in California, among other things.

On Friday Bonta’s office filed its 37th lawsuit, challenging the administration’s efforts to effectively ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth nationwide.

Newsom said Bonta’s work to date shows exactly why it was necessary for him and other California leaders to call a special session and allocate the additional funds. California sued the first Trump administration more than 120 times, and they knew it would need to sue the second Trump administration, too.

“We were mindful that past is prologue,” Newsom said, and the added resources they provided Bonta’s office “have come to bear great fruit.”

Bonta said there is no time to slow down now, as the Trump administration continues to violate the law, and that his team is ready to keep fighting.

“We know that this work is just the beginning,” he said, “but we are not backing down.”

The ex-president, accused of seeking to overturn the 2022 election that he lost, has been backed by US President Donald Trump.

Supporters of former far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro have rallied across the main cities of the country against the Supreme Court coup trial that could land the ex-leader in prison for years.

Protesters in Sao Paolo, Rio de Janeiro and other cities on Sunday carried Brazilian and the United States flags, in an apparent reference to United States President Donald Trump’s support for a staunch ally.

They also held banners with Bolsonaro’s and Trump’s pictures on them as they shouted slogans.

Bolsonaro is accused of seeking to overturn the 2022 election won by his left-wing opponent, current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Bolsonaro supporters stormed Brazil’s congress in January 2023, ransacking the chambers and attacking police, in violent scenes that evoked Trump supporters’ attack on the US Capitol two years before.

A Brazilian general has given evidence that the alleged plotters also wanted to assassinate leftist Lula and several other public officials.

The prosecution told the court that former army officer Bolsonaro and seven others were guilty of participating in “armed criminal association” and had sought to “violently overthrow the democratic order”.

A coup conviction carries a sentence of up to 12 years. A conviction on that and other charges could bring decades behind bars for Bolsonaro.

The former president has repeatedly denied the allegations and asserted that he is the target of political persecution.

‘A witch hunt’

Bolsonaro says he is the victim of political persecution, echoing Trump’s defence when the US president faced criminal charges before his White House return.

Al Jazeera’s Monica Yanakiew, reporting from Sao Paolo, said that protesters were thanking Trump for his support.

“There are a lot of American flags here and people are saying ‘Thank you Trump’,” she said.

“They are thanking President Trump for sanctioning Brazil,” Yanakiew added.

Trump has slammed the trial a “witch hunt” and his Treasury Department has sanctioned Brazil’s Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes in response.

Brazil has strongly criticised the US decision to impose sanctions on de Moraes.

Trump has openly admitted he is punishing Brazil for prosecuting his political ally Bolsonaro. He also signed an executive order slapping 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian imports, citing Bolsonaro’s “politically motivated persecution.”

Protesters gathered on the streets of Brazil on Friday to denounce Trump for the steep tariffs he imposed on the country’s exports. The demonstrations erupted in cities like Sao Paulo and Brasilia, as residents voiced their anger on the first day of Trump’s latest tariff campaign.

Brazil is slated to see some of the highest US tariffs in the world. The tariff is due to enter into force on August 6.

Companies, consumers and countries have been paying close attention to United States President Donald Trump’s aggressive policy of imposing tariffs.

Soon, the courts will weigh in on whether Trump has the power to levy those tariffs in the first place – a high-stakes legal battle that will either affirm a key pillar of Trump’s economic policy or cut it off at the knees.

The US Constitution says Congress holds the power to impose tariffs, not the president. However, over the years, Congress has passed multiple laws ceding some of that power to the president.

Trump has justified his most far-reaching assertions of tariff power by citing the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows tariffs on all imports during an “unusual and extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States”.

Small businesses challenging that position in the case VOS Selections v Trump make two key arguments. They contend that the law doesn’t explicitly allow the president to impose tariffs. And they argue that neither of two Trump tariffs – the levies against Mexico, Canada and China to counter a declared fentanyl crisis and those against a broad swath of trading partners to address US trade deficits – rise to the level of an “unusual and extraordinary” emergency.

On Thursday, one day before Trump’s deadline for a batch of new tariffs to take effect, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in the case. The Trump administration lost the first round in May at the Court of International Trade. (That decision did not affect other Trump tariffs, such as those on steel, aluminium and cars or proposed tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. Trump imposed these using other legal authorities.)

The appeals court will be the last stop before expected consideration by the Supreme Court.

Here’s a primer on how this case could affect Trump’s tariff policies:

Does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act allow tariffs?

Whether the law permits the imposition of tariffs may be hard for the administration to prove.

The law “authorises the president to take various actions but with no mention of ‘tariffs’, ‘duties’,  ‘levies’, ‘taxes’, ‘imposts’ or any similar wording”, said Meredith Kolsky Lewis, a University at Buffalo law professor. “No president has sought to impose tariffs pursuant to the law” before Trump

The administration’s strongest argument may be that although the law “doesn’t specifically authorise tariff measures, it doesn’t bar them either”, said David A Gantz, a Rice University fellow in trade and international economics. “Some have questioned whether Congress intended to cede basic Commerce Clause powers so completely to the president, but the statute does not appear to ever have been seriously challenged in Congress with repeal.”

Does the present situation constitute an emergency?

The second issue might be more challenging for Trump: Are trade deficits a security threat?

In asserting the authority to impose tariffs, Trump said “large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.”

Babson College economist Kent Jones was sceptical. “Those with knowledge of trade economics scoff at the notion that a trade deficit is a national emergency,” he said. “The US has run trade deficits consistently for the last four decades without signs of an economic emergency that can be systematically linked to the deficits.”

The tariffs are being applied to dozens of countries that ship more goods to the US than they import, which “suggests a lack of an ‘unusual’ threat”, Lewis said. “In other words, this is commonplace.”

Using fentanyl trafficking and trade deficits as examples of emergencies breaks new ground, said Ross Burkhart, a Boise State University political scientist who specialises in trade.

Although the law “does not delineate what a national emergency is, the precedent from previous administrations is not to invoke a national emergency based on day-to-day trade flows”, Burkhart said.

An even more aggressive argument in the case of Brazil

Trump’s threat of 50 percent levies on Brazil may be on thinner legal ground, legal experts said.

On July 9, Trump wrote a letter to Brazil’s president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, explaining that the new tariffs would be “due in part” to Brazil’s prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally, as well as its treatment of US social media companies. The letter also cited a “very unfair trade relationship” with Brazil.

[Screengrab from Truth Social]

On Wednesday, Trump declared an emergency based in part on the Bolsonaro prosecution, triggering a 40 percent tariff, effective after a week.

Experts said Trump’s justifications ring hollow legally under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Brazil policy isn’t at issue in the case being argued on Thursday, but it has already resulted in at least one lawsuit.

Experts said they doubted that citing the Bolsonaro case as an emergency would survive judicial scrutiny. Bolsonaro sought unsuccessfully to hang on to power after Lula defeated him in the 2022 election, which prompted years of investigations and charges that could land him in prison.

“I and many others would agree that the Bolsonaro trial – even if [it were] questionable, and it isn’t – would not come close to meeting” the standard under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Gantz said.

Trump’s letter undercuts another key fact in the US-Brazil trade relationship: The US had a $6.8bn trade surplus with Brazil in 2024 and surpluses in earlier years as well.

Certain US sectors, such as social media and electronic payment networks, may have plausible gripes with Brazil over trade policy. Even so, Gantz said, “all of these grievances together seem to me insufficient for action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.”

What happens next?

Most legal experts we talked to said the appeals court would have ample reason to follow the Court of International Trade’s lead in striking down Trump’s authority. “I am quite confident that the law doesn’t give a limitless grant of authority to the president simply by saying some magic words,” said Julian Arato, a University of Michigan law professor.

But that result is no certainty – and ultimately, the US Supreme Court will have the final say. The conservative-majority court should be a friendlier venue for the administration.

If the appeals court doesn’t reverse the Court of International Trade’s ruling, “the Supreme Court will, in my opinion, likely do so,” Gantz said.

And even if the Supreme Court were to rule against Trump, he could still impose tariffs under other laws.

He could use Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows tariffs when the president determines that a foreign country “burdens or restricts United States commerce” through violations of trade agreements. This authority has been invoked dozens of times by various presidents.

Or he could use Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which lets the president impose tariffs if national security is threatened. Trump and former President Joe Biden used this as the basis for steel and aluminium tariffs imposed since 2018.

These more traditional mechanisms have been more battle-tested in court than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Gantz said, providing “a more persuasive legal basis for the tariffs”.

Lawyers seeking a temporary restraining order against an immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades say that “Alligator Alcatraz” detainees have been barred from meeting attorneys, are being held without any charges and that a federal immigration court has canceled bond hearings.

A virtual hearing in federal court in Miami was being held Monday on a lawsuit that was filed July 16. A new motion on the case was filed Friday.

Lawyers who have shown up for bond hearings for “Alligator Alcatraz” detainees have been told that the immigration court doesn’t have jurisdiction over their clients, the attorneys wrote in court papers. The immigration attorneys demanded that federal and state officials identify an immigration court that has jurisdiction over the detainees and start accepting petitions for bond, claiming the detainees constitutional rights to due process are being violated.

“This is an unprecedented situation where hundreds of detainees are held incommunicado, with no ability to access the courts, under legal authority that has never been explained and may not exist,” the immigration attorneys wrote. “This is an unprecedented and disturbing situation.”

The lawsuit is the second one challenging “Alligator Alcatraz.” Environmental groups last month sued federal and state officials asking that the project built on an airstrip in the heart of the Florida Everglades be halted because the process didn’t follow state and federal environmental laws.

Critics have condemned the facility as a cruel and inhumane threat to the ecologically sensitive wetlands, while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and other Republican state officials have defended it as part of the state’s aggressive push to support President Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has praised Florida for coming forward with the idea, as the department looks to significantly expand its immigration detention capacity.

Schneider writes for the Associated Press.

Camarillo — Ever since federal immigration agents raided one of the largest licensed cannabis operators in the state this month, the phones of cannabis industry insiders have been blazing with messages of fear, sadness and confusion.

“It sent shock waves through the community,” said Hirsh Jain, the founder of Ananda Strategy, which advises cannabis businesses. “Everyone is on text threads.”

Glass House Brands, whose cannabis operations have helped make Santa Barbara and Ventura counties the new cannabis capitals of California, has long been among the most prominent companies in the state’s wild frontier of legal cannabis. Some call it the “Walmart of Weed” for its streamlined, low-cost production methods, its gargantuan market share and its phalanx of wealthy investors and powerful lobbyists.

But federal immigration agents stormed onto company property in Camarillo and Carpinteria on July 10 in a cloud of tear gas, as if they were busting a criminal enterprise. Agents in masks and riot gear marched for hours through the company’s vast greenhouses as workers fled and hid in panic. One worker, Jaime Alanís Garcia, died after he fell three stories while trying to evade capture.

For Glass House, the aftermath has been devastating. Its stock, which is traded on the Canadian stock exchange, dropped from more than $7.75 a share the day before the raid to $5.27 on Thursday. Some workers disappeared into Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention or bolted, too fearful to return. Others were so traumatized that Glass House brought in grief counselors, according to a source close to the company.

Glass House Brands has long been a prominent company in California’s wild frontier of legal cannabis.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Across the wider world of legal California cannabis — where many growers and entrepreneurs have hoped the Trump administration would legalize the drug — people were also shaken. Did the action against Glass House signal an end to federal law enforcement’s ceasefire against legal cannabis in California and dozens of other states?

And what did it mean for Glass House itself, among the largest cannabis companies in the world? How could this slick corporate entity, founded by an ex-cop and special education teacher and a former tech entrepreneur, be in a position in which federal agents claimed to have apprehended more than a dozen undocumented minors on site?

“This could not come at a worse time,” said Jain, the cannabis consultant, adding that the images and rhetoric that have whipped across social media in the wake of the raid “impedes our ability to legitimize this industry in the eyes of California and the American public.”

He added that “a failure to legitimize a legal cannabis industry enables the proliferation of an illicit industry that is not accountable and engages in far more nefarious practices.”

Working conditions in the cannabis industry are notoriously grim, as documented in a 2022 Times investigation that revealed workers who had their wages stolen, were forced to live in squalid and dangerous conditions and sometimes even died on the job.

Glass House had no such reports of injuries or deaths before the raid and has long touted its working conditions. A source close to the company said it pays workers more than minimum wage, and internet job postings reflect that.

Still, as with almost all farmwork in California, some of those who labored there were undocumented. The company employs some people directly and relies on farm labor contractors to supply the rest of its workforce. A source close to the company said labor contractors certify that the workers satisfy all laws and regulations, including being 21 or older as required to work in cannabis in California.

In the days after the raid, federal officials announced they had detained 361 people, including 14 minors, who by California law cannot work in cannabis. It wasn’t clear how many of those detained were undocumented or how many were even working at the operation or were just nearby. At least two American citizens were caught up in the dragnet — a security guard headed to work at Glass House and a philosophy professor at Cal State Channel Islands who was protesting the raid.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said this month that Glass House had been targeted because “we knew, specifically from casework we had built for weeks and weeks and weeks, that there was children there that could be trafficked, being exploited, that there was individuals there involved in criminal activity.”

Glass House officials declined to comment for this article, but in an earlier statement on X, the company said that it had never employed minors and that it followed all applicable employment laws. A source close to the company said the search warrant federal officials presented to Glass House the day of the raid alleged it was suspected of harboring and unlawfully employing undocumented immigrants — but did not mention child labor.

In the last few years, the company — along with labor contractors — was named in lawsuits by workers alleging they had been sexually harassed, suffered discrimination, and been shorted overtime pay and required meal and rest breaks.

One worker at Glass House — who asked not to be identified because he is undocumented and hid from immigration agents during the raid before escaping — said he was employed to work in Glass House’s cannabis operation through one of its labor contractors and valued the job because it is year round, not seasonal like many agricultural jobs.

But he complained that the contractor had repeatedly paid him late, forcing him to borrow money to make his rent. He also said supervisors put intense pressure on employees to work faster, screaming expletives at workers, refusing to allow breaks, or yelling at them to eat quickly and return to work before their rest periods were done.

A source close to the company said the complaints involved people employed by labor contractors, regarding actions by those contractors and not Glass House directly.

Many of the suits are pending, with Glass House named as a co-defendant. Company officials declined to comment publicly.

A source close to the company said Glass House takes seriously its responsibilities under California labor law and is committed to ensuring that all labor practices within its operations meet the highest standards.

The source added that the raid has shaken a company that has always tried to operate by the book and that, despite its exponential growth in recent years, has sought to maintain a close-knit feel.

“It’s very sad,” the source said.

In the wake of the raids at Glass House, the United Farm Workers union issued a bulletin in English and Spanish warning anyone who is not a U.S. citizen to “avoid working in the cannabis industry, even at state-licensed operations.” The union noted that “because cannabis remains criminalized under federal law, any contact with federal agencies could have serious consequences even for people with legal status.”

TODEC Legal Center, a Coachella Valley-based group that supports immigrants and farmworkers, issued a similar message. TODEC warned noncitizens to avoid working in the marijuana industry and avoid discussing any marijuana use or possession — even if it is legal in California — with federal agents, because it could hurt their status.

Federal agents conduct a raid of Glass House Brands on Laguna Road in Camarillo.

(Julie Leopo / For The Times)

About half the farmworkers in California are undocumented, according to UC Merced researchers. Cannabis industry experts said it is too soon to know whether the raid on Glass House will affect the larger cannabis workforce — or whether more licensed cannabis operations will be raided.

“My best guest would be that this is going to be happening to a lot more cultivation farms,” said Meilad Rafiei, chief executive of the cannabis consulting group We Cann.

Among the undocumented workers at Glass House on the day of the raids was Alanís, 56, who had been a farmworker in California for three decades. Over the last 10 years, Alanís worked in the Ventura area, first in a flower nursery and then, once Glass House converted the massive greenhouse complex there, in cannabis.

On Monday night, his family held an emotional wake for him in Oxnard, where he lived. The Camino del Sol Funeral Home was filled, as many family members held one another tightly and cried. They remembered him as a hardworking, joyful man, who danced at parties and enjoyed every meal he shared with family.

State Sen. Monique Limón (D-Goleta), who led the Senate in adjourning in Alanís’ memory last week, told the chamber how he had climbed onto the roof of a greenhouse to escape federal officers. From 30 feet up, she said, he called his family to tell them what was happening, and to report “how scared he was.”

“Jaime’s life was dedicated to our lands, our crops, and to providing for his family,” Limón said, adding that he “had had no criminal record, he was who our country and our state depended on to provide food on all of our tables.”

She added that “his last moments on Earth were filled with terror.”

We compare and contrast how Donald Trump stayed silent when Brazil’s leftist leader Lula da Silva was jailed in 2018, but has been loudly condemning the current prosecution of his far-right ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro, as a “witch hunt”.

Move comes after Trump administration labeled Haiti’s Viv Ansanm gang a ‘foreign terrorist organisation’.

The administration of President Donald Trump has said it will deport Haitians living in the United States as legal permanent residents if they are deemed to have “supported and collaborated” with a Haitian gang.

The announcement on Monday is the latest move against Haitians living in the US amid the president’s mass deportation drive, and comes as the Trump administration has sought to end two other legal statuses for Haitians.

The update also comes as rights groups are questioning how the Trump administration determines connections to organisations it deems “terrorist organisations”.

In a statement, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not reveal how many people were being targeted or any names, saying only that “certain individuals with US lawful permanent resident status have supported and collaborated with Haitian gang leaders connected to Viv Ansanm”.

Following the determination, the Department of Homeland Security can pursue the deportation of the lawful permanent residents, also known as green-card holders, Rubio added.

As the Trump administration has sought to ramp up deportations, the State Department has been invoking broad powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act to attempt to deport people living in the US on various visas, including as permanent legal residents or students.

Under the law, the state secretary can expel anyone whose presence in the US is deemed to have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.

The administration has sought to deport four people under the law for their pro-Palestine advocacy, which the State Department repeatedly equated, without evidence, to anti-Semitism and support for the “terrorist”-designated group Hamas.

All four people are challenging their deportations and arrests in immigration and federal courts.

In the statement regarding Haitians on Monday, Rubio said the US “will not allow individuals to enjoy the benefits of legal status in our country while they are facilitating the actions of violent organisations or supporting criminal terrorist organisations”.

In May, the State Department labelled the Viv Ansanm and Gran Grif gangs “foreign terrorist organisations”, calling them a “direct threat to US national security interests in our region”.

That followed the February designation of eight Latin American criminal groups as “terrorist organisations”, including the Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua.

The administration has used alleged affiliation with the gang to justify swiftly deporting Venezuelans living in the US without documentation under an 18th-century wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act.

Critics have said the removal flouted due process, with court documents indicating that some of the affected men were targeted for nothing more than tattoos or clothing said to be associated with the group.

Haitians singled out

The Haitian community living in the US has been prominently targeted by Trump, first during his campaign, when he falsely accused Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, of “eating” pets.

Since taking office, the administration has sought to end several legal statuses for Haitians, including a special humanitarian parole programme under former President Joe Biden, under which more than 200,000 Haitians legally entered the US.

In May, the US Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to end the special status.

The Trump administration has also sought to end temporary protected status (TPS) for Haitians, a legal status granted to those already living in the US whose home countries are deemed unsafe to return to.

In late June, despite the violent crime crisis gripping Haiti, US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem declared that the Caribbean nation no longer met the conditions for TPS.

However, earlier this month, a federal judge blocked the administration from prematurely halting the programme before its currently scheduled end in February 2026.

SACRAMENTO — For nearly 20 years, Maria would call her sister — a nurse in Mexico — for advice on how to manage her asthma and control her husband’s diabetes instead of going to the doctor in California.

She didn’t have legal status, so she couldn’t get health insurance and skipped routine exams, relying instead on home remedies and, at times, getting inhalers from Mexico. She insisted on using only her first name for fear of deportation.

Things changed for Maria and many others in recent years when some Democratic-led states opened up their health insurance programs to low-income immigrants regardless of their legal status. Maria and her husband signed up the day the program began last year.

“It changed immensely, like from Earth to the heavens,” Maria said in Spanish of Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program. “Having the peace of mind of getting insurance leads me to getting sick less.”

At least seven states and the District of Columbia have offered coverage for immigrants, mostly since 2020. But three of them have done an about-face, ending or limiting coverage for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who aren’t in the U.S. legally — California, Illinois and Minnesota.

The programs cost much more than officials had projected at a time when the states are facing multibillion-dollar deficits now and in the future. In Illinois, adult immigrants ages 42 to 64 without legal status have lost their healthcare to save an estimated $404 million. All adult immigrants in Minnesota no longer have access to the state program, saving nearly $57 million. In California, no one will automatically lose coverage, but new enrollments for adults will stop in 2026 to save more than $3 billion over several years.

Cuts in all three states were backed by Democratic governors who once championed expanding health coverage to immigrants.

The Trump administration this week shared the home addresses, ethnicities and personal data of all Medicaid recipients with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. Twenty states, including California, Illinois and Minnesota, have sued.

Healthcare providers told the Associated Press that all of those factors, especially the fear of being arrested or deported, are having a chilling effect on people seeking care. And states may have to spend more money down the road because immigrants will avoid preventive healthcare and end up needing to go to safety-net hospitals.

“I feel like they continue to squeeze you more and more to the point where you’ll burst,” Maria said, referencing all the uncertainties for people who are in the U.S. without legal permission.

‘People are going to die’

People who run free and community health clinics in California and Minnesota said patients who got on state Medicaid programs received knee replacements and heart procedures and were diagnosed for serious conditions like late-stage cancer.

CommunityHealth is one of the nation’s largest free clinics, serving many uninsured and underinsured immigrants in the Chicago area who have no other options for treatment. That includes the people who lost coverage July 1 when Illinois ended its Health Benefits for Immigrants Adults Program, which served about 31,500 people ages 42 to 64.

One of CommunityHealth’s community outreach workers and care coordinator said Eastern European patients she works with started coming in with questions about what the change meant for them. She said many of the patients also don’t speak English and don’t have transportation to get to clinics that can treat them. The worker spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity to protect patients’ privacy.

Health Finders Collective in Minnesota’s rural Rice and Steele counties south of Minneapolis serves low-income and underinsured patients, including large populations of Latino immigrants and Somali refugees. Executive director Charlie Mandile said his clinics are seeing patients rushing to squeeze in appointments and procedures before 19,000 people age 18 and older are kicked off insurance at the end of the year.

Free and community health clinics in all three states say they will keep serving patients regardless of insurance coverage — but that might get harder after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services decided this month to restrict federally qualified health centers from treating people without legal status.

CommunityHealth Chief Executive Stephanie Willding said she always worried about the stability of the program because it was fully state funded, “but truthfully, we thought that day was much, much further away.”

“People are going to die. Some people are going to go untreated,” Alicia Hardy, chief executive officer of CommuniCARE+OLE clinics in California, said of the state’s Medicaid changes. “It’s hard to see the humanity in the decision-making that’s happening right now.”

A spokesperson for the Minnesota Department of Health said ending the state’s program will decrease MinnesotaCare spending in the short term, but she acknowledged healthcare costs would rise elsewhere, including uncompensated care at hospitals.

Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth, a Republican, said the state’s program was not sustainable.

“It wasn’t about trying to be non-compassionate or not caring about people,” she said. “When we looked at the state budget, the dollars were not there to support what was passed and what was being spent.”

Demuth also noted that children will still have coverage, and adults lacking permanent legal status can buy private health insurance.

Healthcare providers also are worried that preventable conditions will go unmanaged, and people will avoid care until they end up in emergency rooms — where care will be available under federal law.

One of those safety-net public hospitals, Cook County Health in Chicago, treated about 8,000 patients from Illinois’ program last year. Dr. Erik Mikaitis, the health system’s CEO, said doing so brought in $111 million in revenue.

But he anticipated other providers who billed through the program could close, he said. “Things can become unstable very quickly,” he said.

Monthly fees, federal policies create barriers

State lawmakers said California’s Medi-Cal changes stem from budget issues — a $12-billion deficit this year, with larger ones projected ahead. Democratic state leaders last month agreed to stop new enrollment starting in 2026 for all low-income adults without legal status. Those under 60 remaining on the program will have to pay a $30 monthly fee in 2027.

States are also bracing for impact from federal policies. Cuts to Medicaid and other programs in President Trump’s massive tax and spending bill include a 10% cut to the federal share of Medicaid expansion costs to states that offer health benefits to immigrants starting October 2027.

California health officials estimate roughly 200,000 people will lose coverage after the first full year of restricted enrollment, though Gov. Gavin Newsom maintains that even with the rollbacks, California provides the most expansive healthcare coverage for poor adults.

Every new bill requires a shift in Maria’s monthly calculations to make ends meet. She believes many people won’t be able to afford the $30-a-month premiums and will instead go back to self-medication or skip treatment altogether.

“It was a total triumph,” she said of Medi-Cal expansion. “But now that all of this is coming our way, we’re going backwards to a worse place.”

Fear and tension about immigration raids are changing patient behavior, too. Providers told the AP that, as immigration raids ramped up, their patients were requesting more virtual appointments, not showing up to routine doctor’s visits and not picking up prescriptions for their chronic conditions.

Maria has the option to keep her coverage. But she is weighing the health of her family against risking what they’ve built in the U.S.

“It’s going to be very difficult,” Maria said of her decision to remain on the program. “If it comes to the point where my husband gets sick and his life is at risk, well then, obviously, we have to choose his life.”

Nguyễn and Shastri write for the Associated Press and reported from Sacramento and Milwaukee, respectively. AP journalist Godofredo Vasquez in San Francisco contributed to this report.