plaintiff

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked President Trump’s administration from paying any claims through a new $1.776 billion settlement fund for the Republican president’s allies who believe they were victims of a weaponized government.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Va., also barred the government from moving forward with the fund’s creation while litigation is pending to challenge it.

The judge, who was nominated to the bench by President Clinton, a Democrat, scheduled a June 12 hearing for arguments on whether to extend the order blocking payouts from an “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The government created the fund to resolve Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.

The White House declined to comment on the judge’s ruling and referred all questions to the Justice Department, which didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The fund has generated a fierce backlash since it was announced last week, with even Republicans pressing acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche over the eligibility considerations and the possibility that even violent rioters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, would be free to seek compensation.

The Justice Department hasn’t formed the five-member commission that will decide on payout criteria, so there has been no money paid out yet or claims accepted.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys from the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward are seeking a court order halting the fund’s implementation and preventing the Trump administration from disbursing any payouts from it. The federal suit claims there is no legal basis or accountability behind the fund.

The Virginia lawsuit’s plaintiffs include a fired prosecutor and a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest.

“The unlawfulness that has imbued the Anti-Weaponization Fund from its inception requires that it be wholly dismantled,” the suit says.

At least two other lawsuits, both filed separately in Washington, also are challenging the fund’s creation. A lawsuit filed by the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington refers to the fund as “a jaw-dropping act of presidential corruption.” Two police officers who helped defend the Capitol from a mob of Trump supporters sued last week.

During a congressional hearing, Blanche wouldn’t rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 could be eligible for fund payouts.

Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Over 1,200 were convicted and sentenced before Trump handed out mass pardons, commuted prison sentences and ordered the dismissal of every pending Jan. 6 criminal case last year.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Darlene Superville, Alanna Durkin Richer and Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Four Memphis residents are suing U.S. and Tennessee officials, saying they have been harassed, arrested and physically mistreated for engaging in First Amendment protected activities by observing and recording law enforcement agents in their city.

A lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court targets the Memphis Safe Task Force, comprising agents from 13 federal agencies that President Trump ordered to the city to fight crime alongside Tennessee State Troopers and the Tennessee National Guard.

Since late September, hundreds of federal, state and local law enforcement personnel tied to the task force have made traffic stops, served warrants and searched for fugitives in the majority Black city of about 610,000 people. The lawsuit says the task force has conducted over 120,000 traffic stops.

“In the professed name of crime control, Task Force agents have stopped, menaced, and arrested Memphians engaging in routine, day-to-day activities,” the lawsuit states. “In response, Memphians encountering Task Force agents in public, including Plaintiffs, have stopped to gather information about and record Task Force activities.”

Emails from the Associated Press to the U.S. Department of Justice and a spokesperson for the task force were not returned on Wednesday morning.

Federal officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, have visited Memphis to praise the task force. Miller in October predicted the surge in law enforcement would make the city “safer than any of you could ever possibly imagine” and that “businesses and investment are going to pour in, and Memphis will be richer than ever before.”

The task force is part of a larger effort by Trump to use National Guard troops and surge federal law enforcement in cities, particularly ones controlled by Democrats. Following troop deployments in the District of Columbia and Los Angeles, he referred to Portland, Ore., as “war-ravaged” and threatened apocalyptic force in Chicago. Speaking last year to U.S. military leaders in Virginia, Trump proposed using cities as training grounds for the armed forces.

The lawsuit accuses task force agents of systematically retaliating against the four plaintiffs and other members of the public engaged in similar observations. It claims the threats and harassment are the “direct result of federal policy” that views observing federal agents performing their duties in public as a threat of harm to those agents. The lawsuit also claims that federal and state officials have failed to train their agents not to retaliate against citizens engaged in First Amendment protected activities.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare that retaliation against the plaintiffs for observing and recording law enforcement activity is unconstitutional and to prohibit the agents from further retaliation. It also targets a Tennessee law that requires observers to stand at least 25 feet away from law enforcement officers, if they are warned to do so, or face arrest. The suit asks the court to declare unconstitutional the use of the “Halo Law” against defendants who are not interfering with agents or impeding their duties.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — An appeals court on Friday blocked President Trump’s executive order suspending asylum access, a key pillar of the Republican president’s plan to crack down on migration at the southern border of the U.S.

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that immigration laws give people the right to apply for asylum at the border, and the president can’t circumvent that.

The panel concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act doesn’t authorize the president to remove the plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making,” allow him to suspend plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating their anti-torture claims.

“The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA’s mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals,” wrote Judge J. Michelle Childs, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Biden.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said in a statement that the appellate ruling is “essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum claims under the Trump administration’s unlawful and inhumane executive order.”

Judge Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, wrote a partial dissent. He said the law gives immigrants protections against removal to countries where they would be persecuted, but the administration can issue broad denials of asylum applications.

Walker, however, agreed with the majority that the president cannot deport migrants to countries where they will be persecuted or strip them of mandatory procedures that protect against their removal.

Judge Cornelia Pillard, who was nominated by Democratic President Obama, also heard the case.

A federal judge has blocked Nexstar Media Group’s $6.2-billion acquisition of its rival, upending the already consummated union of the nation’s two largest television station groups.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley on Friday issued a preliminary injunction that forbids Nexstar, which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles, and its takeover-target, Tegna Inc., from combining operations amid a legal dispute with California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and seven other state attorneys general.

The order takes effect Tuesday.

“Nexstar must permit Tegna to continue operating as a separate and distinct, independently managed business unit from Nexstar,” Nunley wrote in his 52-page order. “And Nexstar must put measures in place to maintain Tegna as an ongoing, economically viable, and active competitor.”

The injunction is Nexstar’s latest setback in the controversial deal championed by President Trump.

Bonta and the others are opposed to the merger, arguing it violates a 112-year-old U.S. antitrust law by knocking out a major competitor. The deal would give Irving, Texas-based Nexstar control of 265 television stations across the country, up from 164. And, in dozens of markets, including San Diego and Sacramento, Nexstar would own multiple TV network affiliates.

That duplication has raised concerns about staff consolidations and widespread newsroom layoffs.

“This is a critical win in our case,” Bonta said in a statement. “This merger is illegal, plain and simple. The federal government may have thrown in the towel, but we’ll keep fighting for consumers, for workers, for affordability and for our local news.”

Nexstar, in a statement, said that it will appeal the ruling, but that it has taken steps to comply with the court order.

“For nearly thirty years, Nexstar has provided free over-the-air access to all its broadcast stations — local news, weather, and community-focused programming alongside major network programming,” Nexstar said. “This procompetitive transaction will make local stations stronger and support continued investment in local journalism and fact-based news.”

Bonta and other state attorneys general sued to block the merger March 18. The state officials, all Democrats, alleged the union would create “a broadcast behemoth” with the “power to raise prices for television consumers” and diminish “local news and sports,” their lawsuit stated.

El Segundo-based DirecTV separately sued. It alleged the merger would dramatically tilt the pay-TV playing field, forcing DirecTV to pay dramatically higher fees for the rights to carry Nexstar-Tegna station programming, including local news and NFL football. Those costs, DirecTV said, would be passed along to its 10 million customers.

Trump had been agitating for the deal, writing in a February social media post: “GET THAT DEAL DONE!”

On March 19, the day after the lawsuits, the Trump administration approved the deal. The U.S. Justice Department terminated its antitrust review and the Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau authorized the transfer of Tegna’s station licenses to Nexstar.

Within an hour, Nexstar announced that it had finalized the purchase of its McLean, Va.-based rival.

Tegna was dissolved and its stockholders were paid out — raising questions about the fate of Tegna’s stations.

“Nexstar must not influence the management of the held-separate TEGNA business unit,” Nunley wrote. “Tegna personnel must maintain control over Tegna’s decisionmaking, including … negotiations [with pay-TV partners], newsroom personnel, operations and programming, product and service offerings, product development, advertisement sales, and personnel.”

Nexstar has complained about the unusual nature of blocking a transaction after-the-fact. But the plaintiffs noted that Nexstar had been aware of the state attorneys general concerns since at least March 10 — more than a week before DirecTV and the state regulators sued.

Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia have joined California in the lawsuit.

The merger was not approved by the full FCC commission, prompting two U.S. senators — Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) — to question the FCC’s handling of the matter.

“This decision raises serious concerns about the Commission’s use of delegated authority in matters involving significant legal, policy, and economic consequences,” the two lawmakers wrote in a March 30 letter to the FCC. “The transaction is unprecedented in scale, resulting in the largest local broadcast television group in U.S. history.”

Nexstar has built itself into a colossus through a series of acquisitions, including its $6.2-billion takeover of Tribune Broadcasting, the longtime owner of KTLA, in 2019 — during the first Trump term.

Opponents have argued that Nexstar’s proposed purchase of Tegna gives Nexstar stations in 44 states covering 80% of the U.S. population — exceeding a 39% ownership cap set by Congress.

DirecTV has argued that the combination of the nation’s two largest television station groups could harm its pay-TV business by raising prices for consumers and potentially increasing programming blackouts.

The judge late last month combined the two lawsuits.

During a two-hour hearing earlier this month, Nexstar attorneys argued against the injunction, saying it had obtained the necessary federal approvals to take control of the Tegna stations.

“Setting aside the unusual FCC clearance process here, the Court does not find Defendants’ arguments persuasive,” Nunley wrote.

Nexstar contends the deal would strengthen TV station economics, allowing stations to bolster their news gathering and expand the number of newscasts. But DirecTV countered that in markets where Nexstar owns two stations, it relies on just one newsroom to program both channels.

“We commend the Court’s decision, which reinforces the coalition of states’ and our shared belief that unchecked station consolidation will force consumers to pay more for less by reducing the quality and variety of local news coverage,” DirecTV said in a statement.

Nexstar attorney Alexander Okuliar said the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the merger posed an immediate threat to the public.

Nunley, who was appointed by former President Obama, wrote in his order that the plaintiffs demonstrated they had a path to prevail at a trial due to the merits of their arguments.

Nexstar had asked the judge to require the plaintiffs to post a $150-million bond to compensate it for damages it would suffer from any delays in closing the deal.

But the judge denied that request, writing that Nexstar did not offer a “financial analysis or documentary evidence to support a bond in this amount” or any evidence that it would incur financial losses should the injunction be overturned.