sues

Stevie Wonder is taking legal action against a reported ex-fiancée, filing a lawsuit this week to evict her after she allegedly lived rent-free at his property in Studio City for nearly four decades.

The prolific musician, whose legal name is Stevland Morris, filed a legal complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Thursday against Carmen Efferson, whom he says has been living for free at a home on Oak Glen Drive since July 1988, according to the complaint obtained by The Times. Wonder seeks to evict Efferson after she allegedly refused to allow inspectors into the property earlier in the summer and failed to vacate the home in August, despite receiving a 30-day notice in late July.

Efferson, whom TMZ reported was once betrothed to the Grammy-winning “Songs in the Key of Life” musician, did not immediately respond to The Times’ multiple requests for response on Friday. A legal representative for Wonder, 76, did not comment and did not clarify the singer’s reported relationship with Efferson. Wonder has been married Tomeeka Bracy since 2017.

According to the musician’s complaint, Wonder and Efferson reached an oral agreement in 1988 that she can occupy the property without paying monthly rent. Tensions began in July this year when representatives for Wonder attempted to access the property multiple times “for purposes of updating and retaining property insurance,” according to an email between Wonder’s legal representatives and Efferson included in the complaint.

One attorney for Wonder notified Efferson on July 23 of a property inspection the following week. Efferson had choice words for the request, emailing another attorney for Wonder on July 25 to “please refrain from your rascist [sic] coldblooded ‘white male privilege’ tone.”

“I’m feeling harassed,” Efferson said, according to screenshots of her email. “Regarding your ORDERS of entering into the place where I am living, I do not consent.”

She ended her email with an explicit statement. An attorney for Wonder responded two days later, informing Efferson that the lawyer who issued the inspection notice “is neither racist, coldblooded, white or male.”

In an email dated July 27, Efferson also threatened to “immediately contact law enforcement” upon further attempts by Wonder’s representatives to enter the property. The next day, attorneys notified Efferson she had 30 days to vacate the home.

“You were given the opportunity to reconsider your decision to deny access and declined,” the notice said, according to the complaint. Efferson was ordered to vacate the property by Aug. 27

On Oct. 6, Wonder’s lawyers issued Efferson a three-day notice to leave the home due to her alleged violation of her oral agreement with the musician. Wonder’s legal representatives also claimed they gave Efferson “three additional opportunities to permit entry” for an inspection, but she failed to respond.

“Owner has been prejudiced by the cancellation of the property insurance policy and is now at substantial risk of economic loss by virtue of your actions to prevent the protection and preservation of the Premises,” attorneys said in the notice, according to exhibits. The attorneys also notified Efferson that Wonder would file a complaint should she refuse access again.

Wonder — celebrating the 50th anniversary of his seminal “Songs in the Key of Life” this year — is seeking forfeiture of the lease agreement with Efferson, legal fees and statutory damages up to $600.

The lawsuit argues Trump bypassed Congress and misused a century-old law to impose sweeping tariffs on Canadian imports.

A US food importer is suing US President Donald Trump over his 50 percent tariffs on Canadian goods, arguing he lacks the legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs without congressional approval.

Gellert Global Group, a New Jersey-based company that imports Canadian cheese, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in the US Court of International Trade in New York.

The company says the tariffs are driving up its costs and disrupting its relationships with suppliers on both sides of the border. Between September 16 and October 11, Gellert had paid more than $520,000 in duties, according to the complaint.

“Gellert Global Group has spent generations building trusted relationships with suppliers, customers and partners across the food industry,” said Thomas Gellert, the company’s co-chief executive officer, in a press release. “These tariffs disrupt those relationships overnight and create costs and uncertainty that ripple through the entire supply chain.”

The lawsuit challenges Trump’s decision to use a Depression-era law to impose tariffs on a wide range of Canadian products, including dairy products, furniture, clothing and wine.

Trump first imposed the 50 percent tariffs over the summer, accusing Canada of discriminating against American-made cars, alcohol and dairy products. He expanded the measures in September, adding more products in response to Canadian retaliatory tariffs.

The lawsuit argues that the law doesn’t apply to the Canadian policies the Trump administration says are discriminatory, since two of them “arose in response to the president’s own tariffs, while the third involves Canadian dairy policy governed by the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)”.

It also questions why Canadian cheese is being taxed over disputes involving alcohol and cars.

“No president should have the power to pull a dormant statute off the shelf and use it to impose sweeping tariffs or import bans without the limits Congress required,” said Sara Albrecht, chairman and CEO of the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit legal organisation that filed the suit on Gellert’s behalf.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, according to the Reuters news agency.

At the centre of the case is Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on imports from countries found to discriminate against American businesses.

The provision had never been used until Trump invoked it this year.

The lawsuit argues that newer laws passed by Congress since then, such as Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, require investigations, public comment and other safeguards that Gellert says the Trump administration has bypassed, and that these override Section 338.

“The administration cannot skip those protections by reaching for a 1930 statute that no president had ever used to impose a tariff,” said Jeffrey Schwab, the Liberty Justice Center’s senior counsel and director of litigation.

In addition, the lawsuit says that even if Trump is allowed to use the older law, he hasn’t met its requirements, including waiting 30 days before tariffs can be collected on new products added to the list.

The administration only waited seven days to start collecting tariffs on cheese in September, according to the lawsuit.

Gellert is asking the court to declare the tariffs illegal, stop them from being collected, and order refunds with interest for importers who have been impacted.

The lawsuit marks the fourth major legal challenge to Trump’s tariffs.

In February, the US Supreme Court struck down most of the tariffs he imposed in 2025, and a trade court later ruled against a temporary 10 percent global tariff. A separate challenge to tariffs imposed over alleged forced labour in international trade is still pending.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has sued the state of California after the state missed a deadline to review a list of registered noncitizen voters sent to officials.

In the lawsuit, filed on Thursday in a US District Court in California, Department of Justice (DOJ) officials asked the court to prevent the state from counting mail-in ballots from voters on a list shared with the state that it said contained 20,000 noncitizens. The agency said it had attempted to “work collaboratively” with California to identify noncitizens registered to vote in the state, but “California made no serious effort to do so”.

The move follows a 48-hour deadline the DOJ gave California in letters sent to officials in several counties in the state on Tuesday, threatening further action if they did not review lists of allegedly ineligible voters the agency said it had shared.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the top state official tasked with administering elections, responded to the letters, saying in a three-page letter that she wanted to “set the record straight” on events that transpired since July. The senior California official maintains that the administration is demanding “unprecedented measures that threaten thousands of Californians’ right to vote, based on unverifiable information or methodology that you still fail to explain or provide”.

Weber said she was informed that the lists provided to local officials include the names of roughly 20,000 individuals. Weber said no list was ever sent to her office. The department previously said it suspected “thousands” of registered voters of being noncitizens, and a lawsuit filed earlier Thursday by the Justice Department put the number at “tens of thousands”.

“Despite failing to send the list of alleged non-citizens to my office, you demand that we request transmittal of the list, review and confirm the citizenship status of each of the approximately 20,000 individuals on the list on the eve of an election and within a mere 48 hours,” she wrote. “This is an emergency of the DOJ’s creation.”

In a statement on Wednesday, election officials in Los Angeles County, one of the county offices that received the ultimatum from the DOJ, pointed out the threat was issued just 21 days before midterm elections. The county statement said it had received a thumb drive with the letter and a handwritten note with what appeared to be a password, but it would not attempt to access the drive because “we do not consider the device a secure medium”.

The county office said maintaining accurate voter lists was “a fundamental responsibility for our office” and that state laws clearly require that removing individuals be “based on verifiable information”.

Trump has repeatedly levelled the false claim that large numbers of noncitizens, who are legally not eligible to vote in federal elections, are casting ballots in Democratic-led states, including in California. State officials, including in California, have said the number of such voters is negligible and that the scale of the problem does not warrant intervention just weeks before elections, scheduled for November 3.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has sharply rebuked the DOJ lawsuit against his state, calling it a “sad, desperate attempt by” Trump to “suppress California voters just three weeks before Election Day”.

“Courts have made clear the federal government has no role in running state elections,” Newsom said in a statement. “We will defend free and fair elections in the Golden State and call out every authoritarian attempt to undermine our democracy.”

Trump has long falsely claimed that noncitizen voting cost him the 2020 election, blaming it on Democrats, despite the issue being a very rare occurrence.

Courts have pushed back on Trump

Earlier this month, a federal judge in Florida ruled that a federal law criminalising voting by noncitizens was unconstitutional, delivering a major setback for Trump administration efforts to pursue such cases against individuals.

The court ruled that, under the US Constitution, only individual states have the authority to set voter qualifications, and that each one had already criminalised such voting by anyone who was not a citizen. Thus, it was up to the state to prosecute such individuals. The DOJ has at least 45 such cases pending nationwide, where the accused could now raise the same objection brought up in the Florida ruling.

Another federal judge ruled this month that the DOJ unlawfully sought state voter rolls for cross-checking them against a controversial federal immigration database to identify ineligible voters. The Trump administration has often touted the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database, but numerous reports have found it inaccurate and capable of flagging citizens as noncitizens. Forcing states to use such a database would be unconstitutional, the judge said.

In September, the US Supreme Court rejected a Trump administration effort to restrict mail-in ballots for the November 3 elections, which Trump argued were especially susceptible to misuse by noncitizens because states were failing to verify who was sending them.

Two dozen states, led by Democrats, filed lawsuits against the Trump administration over attempts to limit mail-in voting, including an executive order directing federal agencies such as the US Postal Service not to handle mail-in ballots without verifying the eligibility of those casting them.

According to the Election Assistance Commission, a bipartisan government agency, around 30 percent of all ballots cast in the 2024 elections were sent by mail. Mail-in ballots are even more widely used in many western states such as California.

The Trump administration on Thursday sued California over its handling of voter fraud claims, asking a federal court to immediately bar the state from counting ballots from about 20,000 voters statewide — many in Los Angeles County — whom the administration alleges are “likely noncitizens.”

The lawsuit is highly unusual, particularly given that California voters have already begun voting in the Nov. 3 midterms via mail ballots, experts said.

It’s also highly inappropriate and based on questionable federal data that have proved wildly inaccurate in other states, state officials said.

“This is a sad, desperate attempt by Trump to use his politicized Justice Department to try to suppress California voters just three weeks before Election Day,” Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X. “Courts have made clear the federal government has no role in running state elections. We will defend free and fair elections in the Golden State and call out every authoritarian attempt to undermine our democracy.”

U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, in his own statement, defended the lawsuit.

“State-facilitated voter fraud is unacceptable in the United States of America,” he said. “If found responsible in a court of law, the State of California will have seriously undermined confidence in our electoral system and violated laws that protect our nation’s representative system of government.”

The lawsuit states that “as part of an investigation into unlawful voting,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services conducted a “multiagency and multilevel review” of state voter and federal citizenship data and determined with “high confidence” that around 20,000 “likely noncitizens” are registered to vote in the state.

It then forwarded those names to Homeland Security Investigations, which conducted its own investigation and concluded the same, the lawsuit says.

“This means that, consistent with state law, nearly 20,000 noncitizens in California have been sent a vote-by-mail ballot to participate in the federal election (or will receive one), with many addresses listed in Los Angeles County,” the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit comes two days after Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter wrote to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, giving them 48 hours to set aside the same ballots in order to investigate those voters’ citizenship status.

McCotter had said the Trump administration would be forced to file for emergency relief in the courts if Weber and Logan did not comply.

The lawsuit comes about three months after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin wrote his own letter to Weber, alleging that there may be more than 190,000 noncitizens registered to vote in California.

The lawsuit makes no mention of that prior estimate, or why Homeland Security’s initial estimate was so much larger than its current estimate. It does say that USCIS identifying with “high confidence” that a voter is a likely noncitizen “means that the match between voter information on the voting roll and USCIS’ internal records is strong and consistent based on multiple identifiers that support a strong identity link.”

It also said, “The Federal Government notified California months ago that numerous noncitizens may be registered to vote in California. Despite knowing that California must send vote-by-mail ballots to every registered voter, the State made no serious attempt to work with the Federal Government to determine whether noncitizens are registered to vote.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for more information as to how the 190,000 figure dropped to 20,000.

In a letter back to McCotter, Weber noted both figures and accused the Trump administration of pushing forward to disenfranchise voters at the last minute before the midterms based on shoddy data work and no certainty that those voters are ineligible.

“Nowhere has the federal government clarified the basis for suspecting — not even confirming with any level of certainty — the listed individuals are non-citizens. And as one court recently noted, the federal government’s citizenship records are ‘known to be unreliable,’” Weber wrote, referring to a case brought against the Justice Department by the organization Common Cause. “To give just one example, in a similar incident in the State of Nevada, DHS initially alleged that Nevada’s voter roll included nearly 16,000 potential non-citizens. However, after working with the State of Nevada, DHS officials failed to establish that a single non-citizen was on the voter rolls.”

Weber called it “remarkable” that the Justice Department would demand that her office “review and confirm the citizenship status of each of the approximately 20,000 individuals on the list on the eve of an election and within a mere 48 hours” despite providing no clear evidence that those individuals are wrongly registered.

“This is an emergency of the DOJ’s creation,” Weber wrote. “California’s election administration will continue to be governed by applicable federal and state law, not by unsubstantiated claims and outrageous demands.”

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, posted about the lawsuit on X, noting the 48-window given to Weber and Logan had lapsed and writing, “Time is up for California.”

“This is not political or controversial,” he wrote. “We will not allow California to dilute the votes of American citizens.”

The Trump administration’s lawsuit says that while the U.S. “actively investigates and prosecutes incidents of unlawful voting,” it “is not practicable or feasible for the United States to investigate before the 2026 election concludes thousands, let alone tens of thousands, of individuals that two federal investigative offices identified on the California voter roster as likely being sent vote-by-mail ballots.”

Because of that, it argues, “California is thus knowingly imposing an obstacle on the United States’ ability to enforce [federal election law] by facilitating unlawful voting rather than working with the Federal Government to prevent it,” and the state is therefore legally barred from sending mail ballots to the 20,000 voters Homeland Security has flagged.

It asks the federal court in the Central District of California to declare the state’s actions — including providing and counting ballots for those 20,000 people — to be barred by law and in violation of the Supremacy Clause, and to issue an injunction barring the state from counting those ballots in federal elections “until those individuals’ citizenship status can be verified.”

The Trump administration’s attempts to use immigration data to reach conclusions about California voter rolls and intervene in California’s election is already being challenged in a separate federal case in the district of Washington, D.C., brought by attorneys with the UCLA Voting Rights Project on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, and a California voter named Pedro Trujillo.

The UCLA attorneys filed their own emergency petition Thursday to preclude the Justice Department from moving forward with such actions against California, citing the letters McCotter sent to Weber and Logan.

A judge in that case ordered the parties to meet and file a status report with the court by Friday as to when each side would be able to brief the court on the issue.

Times staff writer Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.

The former head of Israel’s domestic security agency Shin Bet has sued Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for defamation over claims of his responsibility in the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack.

Coming just before Israel’s close-fought October 27 election in which Netanyahu is fighting for his political life, the case filed on Wednesday is set to ramp up the country’s political drama.

Ronen Bar, the former director of Shin Bet, accused Netanyahu of “lying to cover himself” and said it was slanderous of the prime minister to have accused him of “criminal failures” over the attack, in a 134-page court document.

Bar said he telephoned the prime minister’s military secretary as soon as signs of a possible attack became apparent, but that he did not have Netanyahu’s direct number.

Netanyahu has said he was not alerted by Bar on the morning of the Hamas-led assault, insisting that he could have stopped the attack had the Shin Bet’s then-director or military leaders called to wake him up the day of the early-morning attack.

Bar’s lawsuit says Netanyahu made accusations “that he knew to be false, with the aim of diverting the debate from his own responsibility for the events of October 7”.

Instead, it was Netanyahu’s policies over several years that had “increased the dangers posed by terrorist organisations in Gaza”, it said.

Likud response

On Wednesday, Netanyahu responded to Bar’s accusations in a statement issued by his Likud party saying, “Ronen, are you serious?”

“You had my number on the red line and could have called me immediately, as all security chiefs do,” Netanyahu asked, adding, “How many lives could we have saved if only you had called in time?”

Bar resigned as head of Shin Bet in June 2025 amid recriminations over the deadliest attack in Israel’s history, while insisting he had informed Netanyahu of the threat in advance.

He is seeking three million shekels (about $968,500) in damages from Netanyahu.

Warnings, lies, manipulation

The allegations in Bar’s lawsuit come days after Netanyahu’s former military secretary, Avi Gil, told Israel’s Channel 12 that the prime minister’s office had “falsified records related to October 7, 2023”, including altering the recorded time of a key phone call.

Gil, who served as Netanyahu’s military secretary from July 2021 to May 2024, said a stenographer in the prime minister’s office approached him in January 2024 with instructions from Netanyahu’s chief of staff to change the time of a four-minute call from 6:40am local time (03:40GMT) to 6:29am (03:29 GMT).

“She told me, I’m not allowed to change it,” said Gil, accusing the head of Netanyahu’s office of manipulating telephone records, adding, “Those are facts, and there is no dispute about them.”

Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that Netanyahu had been warned of the attack by Egypt’s intelligence chief, Abbas Kamel.

In a rare move, Kamel reportedly phoned the prime minister just days before the attack, underscoring previous warnings in September 2023, when he is said to have flown to Israel to warn security officials in person that Hamas was planning an attack.

Polls show Netanyahu is in a tight race to stay in power in the October 27 election, after being hammered by former staff and government officials as well as the opposition for failing to prevent the bloodshed.

At least 1,221 Israelis were killed on October 7, 2023, after Hamas broke through the fence separating Israel and Gaza, according to Israeli official figures.

Also, 251 Israelis were taken captive, including the bodies of 44 Israelis killed that day.

In the three years since, Israel has killed more than 74,300 people in Gaza, according to the Health Ministry in the enclave.

More than 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed in Israeli attacks since a tentative “ceasefire” backed by the US was reached last year.

SACRAMENTO — A private prison company is challenging a new California law requiring detention centers to provide medical care, privacy and other civil rights to people detained by federal immigration authorities.

GEO Group, a for-profit prison company, filed a complaint in federal court over Senate Bill 942, also called the Civil Detainees’ Bill of Rights Act of 2026. It mandates that immigrant and other detainees are afforded privacy, safety, hygienic living conditions and other rights.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the law last week as part of a package of bills to push back on the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement, which the Democratic governor described as “Orwellian.” GEO Group filed its complaint the day after Newsom signed the law.

SB 942 declares that detainees at state, local and privately run facilities have the right to medical, dental and mental health care; physical exercise; clean drinking water and functioning toilets; and other rights. It allows the attorney general to bring civil action against private and public entities that allegedly violate those rights.

GEO Group attorneys argue in the federal complaint that while California elected officials “may disagree with federal immigration policy,” the state “may not impose its preferred immigration-detention standards on federal detention operations, whether those standards would tighten, loosen, supplement, or otherwise alter the federal framework.”

According to its website, the company operates six detention facilities in California, four of which are housing detainees under contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That includes a shuttered state prison that began holding ICE detainees earlier this year.

GEO Group has had some previous success challenging laws seeking to undermine the private prison industry’s role in federal immigration enforcement. A federal court struck down a 2019 law that attempted to bar any “private detention facility within the state” after the company filed suit.

Representatives for GEO Group did not respond to a request for comment. Spokespeople for Newsom, Atty Gen. Rob Bonta and state Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Salinas), who authored the bill, did not immediately comment on the lawsuit.

WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee on Wednesday sued President Trump’s administration for recent television advertisements that promoted his political message while costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the ads are illegal government-sponsored propaganda and accuses Trump of personally directing them. It asks the court to declare the ads illegal and stop the use of federal funds to pay for them.

Trump has faced bipartisan backlash for the ads, which glorify him and echo his campaign pitch as voters cast early ballots with the midterm elections less than a month away.

The spots, which began airing in September, already have cost more than $12 million to run, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact, and a total of $20 million in Homeland Security Department funding has been tapped to pay for them.

Responding Monday to the criticism, Trump defended the ads as “positive promotion for our Great U.S.A.” but said he’d pay for them using his MAGA Inc. super PAC going forward.

But on Tuesday, the fifth ad in the campaign began airing with the notice “paid for by the U.S. Government,” promoting Trump’s military actions in Venezuela earlier this year. The same day, Trump made it clear he hasn’t committed to reimbursing any money that has already been spent, telling reporters “we’ll decide.”

DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement that Trump is misusing taxpayer dollars in “a last-ditch attempt to save Republicans in November.”

“Americans deserve better than to have their hard-earned tax dollars used for Trump’s illegal schemes,” he added.

Legal experts have suggested the ads run afoul of a federal statute against congressionally appropriated money being used for “publicity or propaganda,” and potentially other federal laws. The Homeland Security money tapped for the ads comes from a $175 million package Congress gave to the department as part of Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda.

The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements akin to what past administrations have done to promote various policies. Legal experts have said the recent ads differ from many past public service announcements because they aren’t aimed at helping members of the public benefit from specific government programs.

The defendants in the lawsuit — Trump, the White House, DHS and the Office of Management and Budget — didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.