plaintiff

Fans of Angels pitcher Tyler Skaggs might want to hold their ears when the wrongful death trial brought by his widow and parents against the Angels resumes Monday.

The Angels are about to present their defense and, according to people with knowledge of the Angels’ strategy, their attorneys plan to portray Skaggs as a selfish, secretive opioid addict who for years manipulated teammates and team communications director Eric Kay into obtaining illicit pills for him to chop up and snort.

Skaggs, a first-round draft pick of the Angels in 2009 out of Santa Monica High, was one year away from free agency when he died of an overdose July 1, 2019. He died after snorting a counterfeit opioid pill laced with fentanyl in his hotel room during an Angels trip to play the Texas Rangers in Arlington.

The left-handed starter was 27 and in the midst of his best season of seven in the big leagues when he died. His performance has been pointed to by Skaggs family lawyers as evidence he wasn’t a drug addict, but instead an athlete who took pain pills to stay on the field.

So far, testimony in a small, spare courtroom on the ninth floor of the Orange County Superior Court has favored the plaintiffs — Skaggs’ widow, Carli, and parents, Debbie Hetman and Darrell Skaggs.

Their lawyers called 21 witnesses over 24 days in court, attempting to establish that the pitcher’s fatal overdose was the result of the Angels’ negligent supervision of Kay, an admitted longtime opioid addict who is serving 22 years in prison for providing Skaggs with the pill.

The plaintiffs are asking for about $120 million in future earnings as well as additional millions for pain and suffering and punitive damages. Neither side is optimistic that a settlement can be reached ahead of a verdict.

Transcripts of trial testimony and interviews with people on both sides not authorized to speak publicly about the case provided a glimpse of the Angels’ defense strategy and what the plaintiffs have accomplished so far.

The Angels pared down their witness list at the request of Judge H. Shaina Colover, who has insisted the case go to the jury by Dec. 15. The Angels complained that two weeks might not be long enough to present their case, giving the plaintiffs an unfair advantage, even suggesting the issue could lead to a mistrial.

Skaggs’ lawyers, however, pointed out that the defense has taken longer to cross-examine witnesses than it took them to conduct the direct examinations. And Colover said a reason for the difference in the number of witnesses is that 12 people called by Skaggs’ lawyers were on the witness lists of both sides.

Like an MLB manager constructing a lineup, Skaggs lawyers led by Rusty Hardin were purposeful in the order they presented witnesses. They began their case by calling a string of Angels executives to poke holes in the team’s contention that they knew nothing about Kay’s addiction. Key witnesses refuting those denials included Kay’s wife, Camela, and Hetman.

Skaggs’ lawyers also presented text messages that indicated Kay’s supervisor, Tim Mead, and Angels traveling secretary Tom Taylor not only were aware of Kay’s addiction, but did not act decisively to isolate him, get him into inpatient rehab or terminate his employment.

The plaintiffs called witnesses to establish that not only were the Angels negligent on how they dealt with Kay’s addiction, they put his interest ahead of other employees and the organization by allowing him to continue working despite his bizarre behavior on the job.

The last witness before the court went into recess until Dec. 1 was human resources expert Ramona Powell, who testified that the Angels did not follow their own policies in evaluating and responding to Kay’s behavior. She said that had the team done so, Kay could have been terminated well before 2019.

Expect Angels lead attorney Todd Theodora to counter that Skaggs violated his contract and was guilty of fraud by concealing his drug problem for years. Furthermore, Skaggs allegedly continued to pressure Kay to procure opioids for him even after Kay completed drug rehab shortly before the fateful trip to Texas.

During opening arguments, Theodora stated that the Angels “know right from wrong,” but he is expected to assert that the case is more about what the team didn’t know. Kay and Skaggs have been described as masters at concealing their drug use. The Angels contend that had the team known of their addiction, officials could have provided them with treatment and perhaps Skaggs would be alive.

Testimony has already established that the Angels immediately informed MLB that Kay told co-worker Adam Chodzko that he was in Skaggs’ hotel room the night the pitcher died. Expect the Angels attorneys to take it a step further and assert that Kay might not have been prosecuted if the Angels hadn’t acted so swiftly.

Witnesses expected to be called by the defense include Angels president John Carpino and former MLB general manager Dan Duquette. The jury will view video of depositions given by former Angels players C.J. Cron, Matt Harvey, Cam Bedrosian and Blake Parker if they cannot testify in person.

The testimony of players can cut both ways, as evidenced by statements made by two players who testified for the plaintiffs — current Angels outfielder and three-time most valuable player Mike Trout and former relief pitcher Mike Morin.

Trout testified that Skaggs was “like a brother” to him, that he cried when told he’d died and that he had no clue about drug use. But Trout also hedged when asked whether he had offered to pay for Kay’s rehab, saying he just told him he’d help any way he could.

Morin, who pitched for the Angels from 2014 to 2017, said Kay sold him opioids “five to eight times” after an arm injury made him desperate to overcome pain and return to the mound. Yet under cross examination, Morin conceded that Skaggs was responsible for his own actions.

Carpino is responsible for the Angels’ day-to-day operations and his office is adjacent to those of Mead, Taylor and formerly Kay. Duquette, former general manager of the Montreal Expos, Boston Red Sox and Baltimore Orioles, is expected to testify that Skaggs’ future career earnings would have been no more than $30 million because of his drug use and history of injuries.

Skaggs’ lawyers called earnings expert Jeff Fannell, a former labor lawyer for the MLB Players Assn., who testified that Skaggs would have earned between $109 million and $120 million and could still be pitching.

Los Angeles County’s district attorney has opened an investigation into claims of fraud within the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history.

Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said Wednesday his office has started a wide-ranging probe into claims that plaintiffs made up stories of abuse in order to sue the county, which agreed to the historic $4-billion sex abuse settlement this spring.

The announcement follows Times investigations that found nine people who said they were paid small amounts of cash by recruiters to sue the county for sex abuse in juvenile halls. Four of them said they fabricated the claims.

“They looked at this opportunity to compensate these true victims of sex abuse as an opportunity to personally profit and engage in some of the most greedy and heinous conduct,” Hochman said at a news conference Wednesday morning in the Hall of Justice downtown. “We are going to aggressively go after them.”

All nine plaintiffs had their cases filed by Downtown LA Law Group, a personal injury firm that represents roughly 2,700 people in the county settlement. The firm has denied wrongdoing. The Times could not reach the recruiters who made the alleged payments to plaintiffs for comment.

Hochman indicated his investigation, still in its early stages, showed this was just a small fraction of the “significant number of fraudsters involved in these settlement claims.”

Hochman emphasized the inquiry would focus on those higher up the chain — lawyers, recruiters and medical practitioners who may have submitted fraudulent forms — and not the plaintiffs.

Many of the people The Times spoke with who filed false claims were poor and in unstable housing. They said they desperately needed the cash promised by recruiters, which ranged from $20 to $200. All were flagged down outside county social services offices, where many were on their way to get food assistance and cash aid.

Hochman said any person who contacted his office about filing a fraudulent claim would not have the statements haunt them in a criminal prosecution.

“If you provide us truthful information, complete information, any of the words that you use will not be used against you,” said Hochman, adding the offer did not extend to attorneys or medical professionals. “It’s not something that we offer lightly to anyone.”

Hochman said Downtown LA Law Group was one of the law firms they were focused on, but the probe was not limited to them. He said the investigation would touch anyone who helped fraudulent cases get filed.

“I’m happy to label that entire group as a group of fraudsters conspiring to defraud a settlement where the money should be going to legitimate sex abuse survivors and victims,” he said.

The law group has denied paying plaintiffs and said it only wants “justice for real victims” of sexual abuse. The firm declined to comment further Wednesday.

Shortly after The Times’ investigation, the county supervisors voted to launch their own inquiry into possible misconduct by “legal representatives” involved in the lawsuits. The county set up a hotline for tips from the public, and moved to ban “predatory solicitation” outside county social services offices.

The supervisors also joined a chorus of voices — including California lawmakers, labor leaders and a powerful attorney trade group — calling for the State Bar to investigate. The State Bar does not comment on potential investigations, but has previously said California law generally prohibits making payments to procure clients, a practice known as capping.

Downtown LA Law Group represents roughly 2,700 people suing the county. Hochman said the firm is one of several he’s focused on.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

A flood of sex abuse claims followed the passage of AB 218, a state law that gave victims of childhood sexual abuse a new window to sue that stretched far beyond the previous statute of limitations. The law, which went into effect in 2020, has led to thousands of lawsuits filed against California school districts, governments and religious institutions.

This spring, the county agreed to pay $4 billion to resolve thousands of claims from victims who said they were abused decades ago in county-run juvenile detention centers and foster homes. In October, the county agreed to a second settlement worth $828 million over another set of similar claims.

Hochman noted the first settlement would have massive financial ramifications for decades for the county, which acts as a social safety net for the region. The county will pay the settlement out over the next five years and has asked most departments to trim their budgets to help pay for it. The district attorney’s budget, Hochman said, had been slashed by $24 million, in part, to help pay for the cases.

“Every penny that a fraudster gets is a penny taken away from a sex abuse victim that validly and legitimately suffered that abuse at the hands of someone [in] Los Angeles County,” said Hochman. “It is not free money.”

Sean “Diddy” Combs, who is serving four years in federal prison for using prostitutes in “freak-offs,” is under investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in connection with new allegations of sexual assault. A record producer alleges Combs assaulted him on two occasions.

The sheriff’s Special Victims Unit initiated the probe because one of the incidents occurred in East Los Angeles, according to Nicole Nishida, a department spokeswoman. The producer reported the incidents to police in Largo, Fla.

Florida-based music producer John Hay revealed in media interviews that he was the “John Doe” plaintiff from a civil lawsuit filed in July alleging assault.

The producer, who was not named by law enforcement investigating the allegations, alleged he was subjected to sex acts in 2020 and 2021 while working on a remix project of music by Biggie Smalls, a.k.a. Christopher Wallace, which put him into contact with Bad Boy Records and company executive Combs.

A spokesman for Combs did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment on the investigation.

The lawsuit states that, in December 2020, the producer was at a warehouse in Los Angeles that housed some of Notorious B.I.G.’s clothing. The items were being donated to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame later that year, when Biggie would eventually be inducted.

Combs “provided drugs to everyone present. Everyone there was running around the warehouse and tripping on the drugs,” the lawsuit alleges. Combs “started watching porn on his cell phone, grabbed one of Biggie’s shirts off a rack, and began to masturbate with it in front of the plaintiff,” the suit states.

Combs subsequently threw the shirt over the producer’s lap and arm, laughed and said “Rest in peace, Biggie” before leaving the room.

In an incident in March 2021, the plaintiff claims that he was set up. He states in the lawsuit he was lured to a meeting by Biggie’s son, Christopher “CJ” Wallace Jr., and music producer Willie Mack.

But upon his arrival, his head was covered, and Combs appeared and began yelling and ordered everyone to leave, the lawsuit alleges. Combs then allegedly attempted “to force plaintiff to perform oral copulation on Combs, while plaintiff’s head was still covered.”

“I’m pushing for criminal charges to be filed against Combs at a state and federal level,” Hay told ShockYa earlier this month in an interview where he stated he was the civil suit plaintiff.

According to a police report first obtained last month by People magazine, Hay reported the allegations on Sept. 20 of this year to Largo, Fla., police.

Gary Dordick, the producer’s lawyer, said “we intend to present out client’s case to a jury in California and we are confident that the truth will prevail.” Dordick said in a message to The Times that he would not comment further given that a defamation lawsuit was filed last week by Wallace.

Wallace, the son of Biggie Smalls and singer Faith Evans, sued Hay for defamation in a Florida federal court last week, calling Hay’s recent interviews “a calculated smear campaign” that included false statements that he attended Combs’ so-called freak-off parties and “conspired to lure Hay to a location where Combs purportedly assaulted him.”

An attorney for Mack could not immediately be reached for comment.

Wallace says in his defamation action that Hay worked on the remix project, titled “Ready to Dance,” with Wallace and Mack in 2020. A single was released, but the remaining songs were not, due to a lack of interest.

According to the suit, Hay was upset over the decision not to release the music he worked on and began accusing Mack of “inappropriate and abusive behavior” in 2021. But Hay never made an assault allegation, the suit claims.

Combs is currently incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution Fort Dixon, a New Jersey low-security federal penitentiary.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge on Wednesday denied a request from the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena seeking a temporary restraining order in their attempt to keep UCLA football games at the Rose Bowl, saying those entities had not demonstrated an emergency that would necessitate such an action.

Judge James C. Chalfant said previous cases in which the New York Yankees, New York Jets and Minnesota Twins were barred from moving games did not apply to this situation because those teams were scheduled to play in a matter of days or weeks and UCLA’s next scheduled game at the Rose Bowl after its home season finale against Washington on Nov. 22 isn’t until the fall of 2026.

The judge also said there was no indication that the Rose Bowl or Pasadena would suffer imminent financial harm because a contract to construct a field-level club in one end zone had not been signed.

The legal saga is far from over. Chalfant suggested the plaintiffs’ attorneys seek discovery information regarding the school’s discussions with SoFi Stadium and file a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Nima Mohebbi, an attorney representing the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena, said he had filed a public records request in an attempt to gather information about those discussions and was pleased with the judge’s statements.

“Even though he found that there was no immediate emergency,” Mohebbi said, “he made very clear in a lot of his statements that there’s irreparable harm, that UCLA has an obligation to play at the Rose Bowl through 2044 and we’re very confident in our facts of this case. So I think all in, we feel very, very good.”

After the hearing ended, Mary Osako, vice chancellor of strategic communications, said in a statement that “the court’s ruling speaks for itself. As we have said, while we continue to evaluate the long-term arrangement or UCLA football home games, no decision has been made.”

UCLA has played its home football games at the Rose Bowl since 1982. In 2014, Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California system, signed a long-term lease amendment that did not include an opt-out clause in exchange for the stadium committing to make nearly $200 million in improvements through the issue of public bonds. When the judge asked attorneys representing UCLA if they intended to terminate the agreement, they shook their heads in denial.

But Mohebbi accused UCLA of participating in a shell game in which it had furtively explored options for moving to SoFi Stadium.

“What they really want is to have a back-room discussion where they can offer some certain amount of money and pay the city off without having to account for this publicly,” Mohebbi said. “… UCLA has not only attempted to terminate [the contract], they have indicated in no uncertain terms that they are terminating.”

After Jordan McCrary, an attorney representing UCLA, contended that his counterparts in the dispute refused to engage with the school in resolution discussions, Mohebbi said, “there’s nothing to talk about. They have an obligation — we’re not negotiating a way out of this agreement.”

McCrary disputed Mohebbi’s contention that UCLA attorneys had signaled an intention to leave the Rose Bowl through direct conversations between counsel, saying “we believe they were settlement negotiations and we don’t believe they’re admissible” in future court proceedings.

When a UCLA attorney contended during the roughly 80-minute court session that the school’s relationship with the Rose Bowl was breaking down, Chalfant said, “I don’t know why UCLA can’t just show up and play football at the Rose Bowl. You don’t need to talk to them at all.”

Chalfant said he did not agree with the UCLA attorneys’ contention that the Rose Bowl lease amounted to a personal services contract for which specific performance — essentially an order compelling the Bruins to remain tenants — was not available. The judge said specific performance could be available in a situation involving an actual breach or an anticipatory breach of the contract.

Rose Bowl officials have filed litigation intended to compel the Bruins to honor a lease that runs through the 2043 season, saying that monetary damages would not be enough to offset the loss of their anchor tenant.

They are also seeking to prevent the case from being settled through arbitration.

“I know UCLA really wants to have this out of the public sphere,” Mohebbi said, “but the reality is this is a public interest case and there are issues here that absolutely require this case to be in a public forum.

“We’re talking about two public entities. This is not the Rams, or this is not the Lakers. This is a public institution playing with public money going up against another public institution that relies on this other public institution to protect its own taxpayers from dipping into the general fund that goes to things like police services, fire services. I mean, God forbid there’s a fire like the Eaton fire this last year that we’re not going to be able to even cover the bond payments through the general reserves.”

The City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Co. requested a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking to prevent UCLA from leaving the Rose Bowl or terminating its stadium lease until pending litigation against the school is resolved.

The filing contends that the plaintiffs would suffer “immediate and irreparable harm if the status quo is not preserved during the pendency of this lawsuit.” A hearing has tentatively been scheduled for Wednesday morning.

Last week, the plaintiffs sued to force the Bruins to honor the terms of the lease that requires them to stay at the Rose Bowl through the end of the 2043 season.

UCLA responded in a statement that it was still evaluating options for its football home, though someone familiar with the university’s thinking on the matter later confirmed to The Times that if the Bruins decided to leave for SoFi Stadium, they would want to do so for the 2026 season.

In their Monday filing, the plaintiffs contended that: “there is no way to sugarcoat it: UCLA has confirmed its imminent departure, severely destabilizing Plaintiffs’ core operations. Those operations are structured around and contingent upon UCLA. Without confirmation that UCLA intends to honor its contractual commitments — at least during the pendency of this litigation — Plaintiffs are deprived of the ability to plan and manage the stadium’s schedule and their ongoing business operations, including cultivating and securing future business partners and opportunities, retaining personnel, and maintaining confidence among the many vendors and sponsors who rely on UCLA Football.

“Equally troubling is the precedent UCLA is setting. Stadium and arena public-private partnerships, and the financing that makes them possible, turn on enforceable, long-term contracts, with terms that typically follow the public debt incurred. UCLA’s attempt to break its contract decades early critically undermines these structures.”

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to remove transgender markers from new passports and to require applicants to designate they were male or female at birth.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted another emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and put on hold a Boston judge’s order that prevented the president’s new passport policy from taking effect.

“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the court said in an unsigned order. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

She said there was no emergency, and the change in the passport policy would pose a danger for transgender travelers.

“The current record demonstrates that transgender people who use gender-incongruent passports are exposed to increased violence, harassment, and discrimination,” she wrote. “Airport checkpoints are stressful and invasive for travelers under typical circumstances—even without the added friction of being forced to present government-issued identification documents that do not reflect one’s identity.

“Thus, by preventing transgender Americans from obtaining gender-congruent passports, the Government is doing more than just making a statement about its belief that transgender identity is ‘false.’ The Passport Policy also invites the probing, and at times humiliating, additional scrutiny these plaintiffs have experienced.”

Upon taking office in January, Trump ordered the military to remove transgender troops from its ranks and told agencies to remove references to “gender identity” or transgender persons from government documents, including passports.

The Supreme Court has put both policies into effect by setting aside orders from judges who temporarily blocked the changes as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

U.S. passports did not have sex markers until the 1970s. For most of time since then, passport holders have had two choices: “M” for male and “F” for female. Beginning in 1992, the State Department allowed applicants to designate a sex marker that differed from their sex at birth.

In 2021, the Biden administration added an “X” marker as an option for transgender and non-binary persons.

Trump sought a return to the earlier era. He issued an executive order on “gender ideology extremism” and said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female.” He required “government-issued identification documents, including passports” to “accurately reflect the holder’s sex” assigned at birth.

The ACLU sued on behalf of transgender individuals who would be affected by the new policy. They won a ruling in June from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick who blocked the new policy from taking effect.

The transgender plaintiffs “seek the same thing millions of Americans take for granted: passports that allow them to travel without fear of misidentification, harassment, or violence,” the ACLU attorneys said in an appeal to Supreme Court last month.

They said the administration’s new policy would undercut the usefulness of passports for identification.

“By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely…{It} undermines the very purpose of passports as identity documents that officials check against the bearer’s appearance,” they wrote.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued the plaintiffs had no authority over official documents. He said the justices should set aside the judge’s order and allow the new policy to take effect.

“Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments,” he wrote.

Clippers owner Steve Ballmer is being sued by 11 former investors in the sustainability firm Aspiration Partners.

Ballmer was added this week as a defendant in an existing civil lawsuit against Aspiration co-founder Joseph Sanberg and several others associated with the now-defunct company. Ballmer and the other defendants are accused of fraud and aiding and abetting fraud, with the plaintiffs seeking at least $50 million in damages.

“This is an action to recover millions of dollars that Plaintiffs were defrauded into investing, directly or indirectly, in CTN Holdings, Inc. (‘Catona’), previously known as Aspiration Partners, Inc,” reads the lawsuit, which was initially filed July 9 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Central District.

Attorney Skip Miller said his firm, Miller Barondess LLP, filed an amended complaint Monday that added the billionaire team owner and his investment company, Ballmer Group, as defendants in light of recent allegations that a $28-million deal between Aspiration and Clippers star Kawhi Leonard helped the team circumvent the NBA’s salary cap.

“Ballmer was the perfect deep-pocket partner to fund Catona’s flagging operations and lend legitimacy to Catona’s carbon credit business,” says the amended complaint, which has been viewed by The Times. “Since Ballmer had publicly promoted himself as an advocate for sustainability, Catona was an ideal vehicle for Ballmer to secretly circumvent the NBA salary cap while purporting to support the company as a legitimate environmentalist investor.”

Although Ballmer did invest millions in Aspiration, it is not known whether he was aware of or played a role in facilitating the company’s deal with Leonard. The Times reached out to the Clippers for a comment from Ballmer or a team representative but did not receive an immediate response.

CTN Holdings filed for bankruptcy in March and, according to the lawsuit, is no longer in operation.

In late August, Sanberg agreed to plead guilty in federal court to a scheme to defraud investors and lenders of more than $248 million. On Sept. 3, investigative journalist Pablo Torre reported on his podcast that after reviewing numerous documents and conducting interviews with former employees of the now-defunct firm, he did not find evidence of any marketing or endorsement work done by Leonard for the company.

That was news to the plaintiffs, according to their amended lawsuit.

“Ballmer’s purported status as a legitimate investor in Catona was material to Plaintiffs’ decision to invest in and/or keep their investments with Catona,” the complaint states.

It also says that “Sanberg and Ballmer never disclosed to Plaintiffs that the millions of dollars Ballmer injected into Catona were meant to allow Ballmer to funnel compensation to Leonard in violation of NBA rules and keep Catona’s failing business afloat financially. Sanberg and Ballmer’s scheme to pay Leonard through Catona to evade the NBA’s salary cap was only later revealed in 2025, by journalist Pablo Torre.”

Miller said in a statement to The Times: “A lot of people including our clients got hurt badly in this case. This lawsuit is being brought to make them whole for their losses. I look forward to our day in court for justice.”

The NBA announced an investigation into the matter in early September. Speaking at a forum that month hosted by the Sports Business Journal, Ballmer said that he felt “quite confident … that we abided [by] the rules. So, I welcome the investigation that the NBA is doing.”

The Clippers said in a statement at the time: “Neither Mr. Ballmer nor the Clippers circumvented the salary cap or engaged in any misconduct related to Aspiration. Any contrary assertion is provably false: The team ended its relationship with Aspiration years ago, during the 2022-23 season, when Aspiration defaulted on its obligations.

“Neither the Clippers nor Mr. Ballmer was aware of any improper activity by Aspiration or its co-founder until after the government instituted its investigation.”

Leonard also has denied being involved in any wrongdoing associated with his deal with the now-defunct firm. Asked about the matter Sept. 29 during Clippers media day to open training camp, Leonard said, “I don’t think it’s accurate” that he provided no endorsement services to the company. He added that he hadn’t been paid all the money due to him from the deal.

NEW YORK — President Trump’s request to add a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form cannot be enforced, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., sided with Democratic and civil rights groups that sued the Trump administration over his executive order to overhaul U.S. elections.

She ruled that the proof-of-citizenship directive is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, dealing a blow to the administration and its allies who have argued that such a mandate is necessary to restore public confidence that only Americans are voting in U.S. elections.

“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her opinion.

She further emphasized that on matters related to setting qualifications for voting and regulating federal election procedures “the Constitution assigns no direct role to the President in either domain.”

Kollar-Kotelly echoed comments she made when she granted a preliminary injunction over the issue.

The ruling grants the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment that prohibits the proof-of-citizenship requirement from going into effect. It says the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which has been considering adding the requirement to the federal voter form, is permanently barred from taking action to do so.

A message seeking comment from the White House was not immediately returned.

The lawsuit brought by the DNC and various civil rights groups will continue to play out to allow the judge to consider other challenges to Trump’s order. That includes a requirement that all mailed ballots be received, rather than just postmarked, by Election Day.

Other lawsuits against Trump’s election executive order are ongoing.

In early April, 19 Democratic state attorneys general asked a separate federal court to reject Trump’s executive order. Washington and Oregon, where virtually all voting is done with mailed ballots, followed with their own lawsuit against the order.

Swenson and Riccardi write for the Associated Press.