nunley

A federal judge blasted KTLA-TV Channel 5’s owner, the Texas-based Nexstar Media Group, on Thursday for violating a court order and for failing to disclose key information.

U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley found that Nexstar’s actions violated terms of an April preliminary injunction that was designed to prevent the media company from moving forward with its $6.2-billion takeover of rival TV station group Tegna Inc. and meddling with its management.

The judge called Nexstar’s actions “brazen.” He demanded the company begin submitting monthly reports and said a special master would be appointed to help manage the antitrust case and monitor Nexstar for compliance.

And Tegna’s recently constituted board — filled with high-level Nexstar officials — must be dissolved.

A Nexstar spokesman wasn’t immediately available for comment.

Nexstar unveiled its Tegna takeover a year ago. At the time, TV stations were lobbying the Federal Communications Commission to relax station ownership rules, a move that occurred Thursday in a split decision.

Last spring, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and seven other state attorneys general challenged Nexstar’s proposed acquisition, alleging the roll-up of more than 250 local TV stations would violate a U.S. antitrust law intended to protect consumers and competitive markets.

Bonta and other plaintiff states argued the consolidation would lead to local newsrooms shuttering, particularly in smaller markets, such as Sacramento and Indianapolis, where Nexstar would own multiple network affiliates.

Despite Bonta’s lawsuit, Nexstar hurried the next day to finalize its purchase of Virginia-based Tegna and swallow the operation. Tegna disbanded, its shareholders were paid and top Tegna executives exited.

Nunley, who is based in Sacramento, is overseeing the case. He initially issued a restraining order, followed by a more lengthy preliminary injunction that ordered Nexstar to halt its integration while the court case was pending.

Tegna should continue to operate as a separate business unit — free from the influence of Nexstar, the judge ruled.

But on the day that Nunley issued the restraining order, Nexstar formed a new Tegna board filled with Nexstar officers, including Chief Executive Perry Sook, Chief Financial Officer Lee Ann Gliha, and later Mike Biard, a former Fox executive who joined Nexstar in 2023 as chief operating officer.

Nexstar countered that while Nunley’s order said Nexstar employees were restricted from serving as “officers,” it didn’t expressly say they couldn’t serve on Tegna‘s board as “directors.”

“Defendants cannot convincingly argue that having Nexstar executives serve on TEGNA’s Board complies with the preliminary injunction,” Nunley wrote in Thursday’s order, adding that Nexstar’s position was “entirely disingenuous.”

Nexstar now must dissolve the board.

“It is shocking that Defendants think installing a Board of Directors comprised primarily of Nexstar executives would not create influence over Tegna management,” Nunley wrote.

He also admonished Nexstar for not providing that information in any of the hearings or in its filings with the court. “Defendants have a duty of candor to the Court under California Rule of Professional Conduct,” Nunley wrote.

His order was designed “to preserve Tegna as a separate and distinct, independently managed business unit from Nexstar,” Nunley wrote. “Nexstar’s control of the Tegna Board will undoubtedly allow it to influence Tegna’s management and obtain access to Tegna’s confidential information.”

Bonta, in a statement, said: “We thank the court for its attention to this matter and look forward to arguing our case and blocking this merger.”

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dealt another blow to the Trump administration’s mass deportation project Thursday, ruling alongside the 7th Circuit that most immigrants cannot be held without bond while fighting to remain in the U.S.

The rulings will apply to jurisdictions that stretch across much of the southern border, affecting states where large numbers of immigrant detainees are held in federal custody. Unless immigrants are caught while crossing the border or soon after, they will now be entitled to a bond hearing, where a judge will decide whether there is enough evidence to justify their indefinite detention.

The twin decisions come little more than a year after the Department of Homeland Security ordered “mandatory detention” for all immigrants picked up by its agents — a policy that had previously only applied to those caught at the border.

The policy shift sowed chaos in federal courts, as thousands of immigrants began suing for bond hearings that had long been automatic. California’s district judges were overrun with emergency petitions for writs of habeas corpus, a legal maneuver rarely used outside death row appeals.

“Versions of this case have played out in federal courts across the country,” Judge Daniel A. Bress wrote for the 9th Circuit on Thursday. “The vast majority of the district courts to confront the issue have concluded that [mandatory detention] is limited to the border.”

Those district court battles have grown increasingly heated as caseloads have swelled.

This spring, Eastern District of California Chief Judge Troy Nunley took the rare step of sanctioning a government lawyer over failing to tell the court if and when a man he’d ordered released had actually gone free.

The attorney told Nunley he was drowning in nearly identical cases and had fallen behind with the paperwork. In an interview, Nunley said he and other judges were “up all night” ruling on emergency petitions and ensuring those orders were followed.

The sanction was later transferred from the lawyer to the U.S. attorney’s office, though Nunley warned that he would issue more if he didn’t see proof immigrants had been set free as ordered.

“A pattern of unchecked and unaddressed mistakes in complying with court orders will be viewed as a deliberate and strategic choice,” he wrote in his order.

The majority of appellate courts have now also sided against the administration. As of Thursday, two circuits have affirmed the government’s position and six opposed it, teeing up what experts call an inevitable Supreme Court challenge.

Both of Thursday’s decisions invoked the high court’s future stake in the case. The 9th Circuit wagered that only two justices were likely to side with the administration, while the 7th merely implored the high court to weigh in.

“At this point, only the Supreme Court can bring uniformity and settle this question once and for all. I anticipate that it will do so soon,” Judge Diane S. Sykes wrote in her dissent.

“We share the dissent’s hope that the Supreme Court will settle this matter,” Judge Joshua P. Kolar wrote for the majority.