sues

California filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration Monday — one to block President Trump’s latest round of tariffs on international trading partners, the other to block his administration from sharing needy families’ personal data with immigration officials.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office brought the lawsuits alongside other Democratically led states, said they were both intended to rein in a lawless president pushing policies that threaten American families already struggling to afford basic necessities.

Bonta said the new tariffs are part of a “failed and illegal economic policy” that has previously been blocked in court. He alleged that the proposed data sharing was part of a broader and illegal “mass surveillance effort” by the Trump administration to target its political opponents.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the two lawsuits. But it has previously defended both tariffs and data-sharing policies as part of Trump’s “America first” agenda to improve the economic standing of American families.

Trump has defended his tariffs, and a previous set that was ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court, as necessary to fix years of unfair trading practices in which international partners took advantage of the U.S. However, many economists have determined that the cost of the tariffs are being passed on to U.S. consumers and contributing to the persistent inflation causing economic pain nationwide.

Trump, the White House and top officials in his administration have also defended the sharing of personal data among U.S. agencies, and from individual states to the federal government, as a commonsense way to reduce waste and fraud and to identify and remove people who are in the country illegally and consuming benefits intended for American families.

The administration has previously sought the personal data of Medicaid recipients, SNAP food assistance recipients, immigrants who have filed taxes with the Internal Revenue Service and registered voters in states across the country. All of those demands have also been challenged in court, with varying degrees of success.

Bonta’s office has now filed 82 lawsuits against the current Trump administration.

Tariff lawsuit

Trump’s latest tariffs, levies of between 10% and 12.5%, took effect late last month and apply to more than 80 countries, including some of the closest U.S. allies and largest trading partners such as Canada, Mexico and the European Union. They followed a Trump administration announcement of new 50% tariffs on many Canadian products, set to go into effect this month.

“Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the president’s failed and illegal economic policy — no matter how much the president wants them to,” Bonta said in announcing the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Two previous attempts by the Trump administration to unilaterally levy tariffs on trading partners were rejected by the courts in the face of similar legal challenges by California and other states. In February, the Supreme Court rejected a sweeping slate of tariffs Trump had imposed on an emergency basis. In May, the Court of International Trade turned back another set.

The Trump administration has said the president’s latest tariffs are authorized by a separate law not considered in the previous litigation — one related to combating forced labor in global trade.

The states’ lawsuit argued that the reliance on labor law was simply a “guise” used by Trump to impose new tariffs, and that “there is no rational fit between the purported problem of forced labor in international supply chains and the blanket global tariffs” imposed.

Bonta brought the case alongside the attorneys general or governors of 24 other states.

Data-sharing lawsuit

California joined a similar coalition of Democrat-led states to file a lawsuit challenging the sharing of needy families’ data, in federal court in Washington, D.C.

The lawsuit challenges a notice the Trump administration issued last month announcing the Administration of Children and Families would begin sharing the personal information of recipients in the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to outside agencies — including with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which houses Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other immigration enforcement units.

A spokesperson for the Administration for Children and Families said it does not comment on ongoing litigation.

The program provides $16 billion in grants annually to the states, which use it to provide cash assistance to low-income families. Some 350,000 families in California receive support through the program each month, Bonta’s office said.

Bonta said the sharing of program data with Homeland Security would be a clear violation of the law establishing the fund.

“The Trump Administration is exploiting a program designed to ensure children do not go hungry and to help needy families get back on their feet in order to fuel its mass surveillance effort. It’s cruel, unnecessary, and illegal,” Bonta said in a statement.

During a morning news conference, Bonta said one of his concerns is that immigration officials will use data to target the undocumented parents of U.S. citizen children who are legitimately receiving assistance through the program.

“They’re seeking Social Security information, marital status, income information,” he said. “We think that they might be interested in that information to potentially target parents.”

He said he also believes the data sharing is part of a much broader effort by the Trump administration to gather up as much data as possible in order to target individuals who do not conform with the administration’s political agenda, including on immigration policy and on issues such as abortion and gender-affirming care.

“While the Trump Administration continues to break the law in order to amass an ever-greater trove of people’s personal information, we’ll continue stepping in to protect the privacy of our people,” Bonta said.

The lawsuit is just the latest in a much broader legal war over the Trump administration’s drive to force all kinds of federal and state social services and financial programs to share the personal data of benefit recipients and other program users.

California is fighting alongside other states in court to block the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from sharing personal data of Medicaid recipients with Homeland Security, though some of that data have already been shared.

California is also fighting alongside other states in court to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand that states turn over the personal data of millions of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, recipients. The demand came with a threat from USDA that it would cut off funding to states that don’t comply. Courts have blocked the suspension of funds, but some data have been shared.

Immigrant rights groups, including Los Angeles-based Inclusive Action for the City, are also suing to block a Trump administration plan to share IRS taxpayer data with Homeland Security. The Trump administration has said the data sharing would be used to target only criminals, but immigrant rights advocates have denounced it as an attempt to do just the opposite — to target immigrants who have been in the country and paid taxes for years.

A producer sued Netflix on Wednesday, alleging the streamer lost an unreleased copy of a new Nicolas Cage movie and seeking damages of at least $105 million.

Producer Simon Afram invested more than $45 million of his own money making “Fortitude,” a film that takes place during World War II and features actors including Cage, Sir Ben Kingsley and Ron Perlman, according to the lawsuit. The movie, described as “Ocean’s Eleven” meets “Inglourious Basterds,” is based on Operation Fortitude, an effort during World War II in which double agents set a trap for Adolf Hitler and his armies. The movie has not yet been released and is seeking buyers.

“Fortitude” had its own mystery last month when the drive that once held the movie went missing.

On June 15, Daniel Haido, an associate producer of “Fortitude,” dropped off an unencrypted copy of the movie for Netflix to view and instructed the staff to delete the files after the screening. Haido also told Netflix to notify him when the drive was ready for pick up, but Netflix was unresponsive to several efforts to pick up the drive, the lawsuit said. On June 25, Netflix notified Haido that the drive had been stolen.

“Unfortunately, someone stole a good amount of drives from our office desks this past week,” Sean Berney, a director for original film at Netflix, wrote in a June 25 email, according to the lawsuit. “We’ve been working through this with our security teams to no luck.”

Berney in his email offered to reimburse Afram’s company for the missing drive or create a new digital cinema package, according to the lawsuit.

But Afram in his lawsuit said the damage was much greater than that. He is seeking economic damages of at least $105 million, along with other costs.

“By losing control of the Film, Netflix destroyed that exclusivity and materially, if not completely, impaired the Film’s marketability,” his lawsuit said. “It is not fathomable that a sophisticated buyer would invest tens of millions of dollars to acquire the Film — and tens of millions more to market it — while facing the constant risk that it could appear online to be viewed widely for free at any time.”

Netflix in a statement said it is conducting an investigation and is offering to monitor piracy sites for any unauthorized distribution or sale of the film. The streamer accused Afram’s law firm of “hostile attempts to extort money from Netflix over this situation — including immediately demanding $165 million for the film rather than work with us in good faith.”

“Netflix disputes any claim that it bears the risk of loss for a film delivered without the proper industry-standard safeguards,” the company said in a statement. “While we do not own the rights to ‘Fortitude,’ we take content security seriously and have taken extra measures to support the filmmaker and his team.”

Akerman LLP, one of the firms representing Afram in his lawsuit, declined to comment, citing pending litigation. Johnson & Johnson LLP did not immediately return a request for comment.

Regarding Netflix’s statement, a spokesman for Afram said, “Our lawsuit speaks for itself.”

The L.A. billboard magnate whose name hung over the entrance to USC’s practice football field for a quarter century is suing the school for building a new, $200 million facility over top of it.

Brian Kennedy, a former whose company Regency Outdoor Advertising owns billboards all over Los Angeles, claims in the lawsuit that USC breached its contract by demolishing the practice field to build the Bloom Football Performance Center, which is set to open early next month. The arrival of the state-of-the-art facility and erasure of a field that featured the name of Kennedy and one other donor, according to a complaint obtained by The Times, has caused him “reputational harm,” “embarrassment” and “humiliation.”

“For more than two decades,” the complaint states, “the Field stood as a visible acknowledgment of [Kennedy’s] extraordinary contributions to [USC] and the lasting relationship between [Kennedy] and the University.”

Kennedy was one of USC’s most visible and vocal boosters during its glory years under football coach Pete Carroll. In recent years, Kennedy had also used his billboards to demand the return of former USC running back Reggie Bush’s Heisman Trophy.

But his relationship as a big-time donor to Trojan athletics really began in 1998, when USC was desperate to build a new practice field for new football coach Paul Hackett.

Kennedy told The Times in 2023 that the school came to him after it had trouble finding another wealthy booster to foot the bill. To that point, he’d only made smaller contributions, primarily to the club hockey and golf teams. But eventually, the school convinced Kennedy to fork over $400,000 for the field, under the condition, he said, that he control all aspects of the construction. He also later paid to add turf and an electronic scoreboard to the field.

He also later paid to add turf and an electronic scoreboard to the field.

Kennedy and USC officially entered into an agreement to construct the field in April 1998. According to the complaint, the original agreement to name the field “and any expansion of it” after Kennedy was intended to remain in effect “for the life of the field.”

The original agreement, according to Kennedy, was for the terms of the agreement to remain “for a period of 50 years.” But that language, the complaint notes, was struck from the agreement before the final agreement was drafted a week later.

How the “life” of Howard Jones and Brian Kennedy Field is defined will be especially important to the case. USC has made changes to the practice field and reconfigured it since its original construction. A person familiar with the school’s thinking but not authorized to speak publicly told The Times that the school plans to argue the field had outlived its usefulness.

USC defensive coordinator Gary Patterson directs players during a practice at Howard Jones and Brian Kennedy Field on March 10.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Kennedy did meet with USC officials at one point to try to find a “a mutually acceptable means of preserving and honoring the recognition previously afforded and promised to [him].” But he ultimately felt that USC wasn’t offering “comparable recognition” to his original investment in building a field he saw as part of his legacy.

Now, he’s suing USC for promissory estoppel, fraud, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and negligent misrepresentation. Kennedy says in the filing that righting the wrong would mean “enforcement of USC’s promises” as well as “appropriate relief for the plaintiff.”

Even with the new facility opening, the plan at USC, according to a person familiar with the situation, had been to keep the west entrance to the practice field which bears Kennedy’s name, known as Goux’s Gate, untouched. The school also plans to add a plaque to the facility that denotes that it stands on the ground where Brian Kennedy Field once stood.

That wasn’t enough for Kennedy, who says the school has acted “willful, malicious, oppressive, fraudulent” and “despicable” as it planned its facility improvements.

During interviews with The Times in 2023 and 2024, Kennedy expressed a deep love and affection for his alma mater. But for more than a decade, his relationship with USC has been complicated, to say the least.

It first soured over a decade ago, during the tenure of athletic director Pat Haden. Where Kennedy was close to his predecessor, Mike Garrett, he did not get along with Haden. Kennedy was a major proponent of former Trojan assistant Ed Orgeron, who led USC on a magical, late-season run as interim coach in 2013 — and who was infamously passed over for the job in favor of Steve Sarkisian.

Kennedy told The Times he also clashed with Haden’s successor, Lynn Swann, over pledged funding for the Galen Center.

His complaint states that Kennedy, in total, has contributed over $4 million to USC.

Former USC athletic director Mike Bohn made inroads with Kennedy, meeting with him for lunch multiple times. But Kennedy told The Times he felt the same effort hadn’t been made by Bohn’s successor, Jennifer Cohen.

The practice field naming rights proved to be the last straw in what was already a fraught relationship with USC.

Malcolm-Jamal Warner‘s widow and his mother are on opposing sides of a legal battle over $1.2 million, a year after “The Cosby Show” star died suddenly at age 54.

Tenisha Warner, the actor’s wife and mother to his daughter, on Monday filed a civil complaint against her mother-in-law alleging breach of contract. The complaint, filed in DeKalb County Superior Court in Georgia, alleges that Pamela Warner — trustee of the Warner Family Trust — owes her daughter-in-law an approximate total of $1,276,042.46 stemming from the spouses’ premarital agreement and the actor’s other alleged financial obligations to his wife, according to legal documents reviewed by The Times.

Malcolm-Jamal Warner, the Emmy-nominated actor who starred as Theo Huxtable for eight seasons on “The Cosby Show,” died on July 20, 2025, in an accidental drowning while on vacation at Playa Grande, Cahuita, Limón. He married Tenisha in May 2022.

According to her complaint, Tenisha and Malcolm-Jamal Warner’s premarital agreement stated that the actor should purchase and maintain a term life insurance policy of $1 million with his wife as the sole beneficiary. Malcolm-Jamal also agreed in their prenup to maintain and contribute the maximum annual amount to a Roth IRA account for his wife, a financial obligation worth $30,500, according to court documents. Tenisha also claims Malcolm-Jamal agreed to pay her $16,000 a year for each wedding anniversary and a monthly salary of $5,500 “for her service as his Chief of Staff.” The complaint includes a copy of the premarital agreement.

In a statement shared with The Times on Wednesday, Tenisha said she has attempted to privately settle Malcolm-Jamal’s “complicated estate and honor his last wishes” and that the actor “had every intention to provide for our nine-year-old daughter and me.” Tenisha also said her late husband intended to finalize a new estate plan — “the stale plan created [was] in 1996 when he was 26 years old” — but was unable to do so before his death.

“I have been struggling to care for our daughter as a single mom and now as her sole provider. Legally, I had no choice but to take action to protect our rights before any potential statute of limitations expired,” she continued. “We thank you for your support, love, and understanding as we work through this painful process while honoring Malcolm’s life on the first anniversary of his death.”

According to the complaint, Malcolm-Jamal died “without having satisfied his obligations” to his wife and Tenisha has not received payments related to her agreements with the actor. “The full amount of the obligations described herein remains due,” the complaint said.

Tenisha’s complaint also seeks a declaration confirming the validity of her premarital agreement.

Pamela Warner commemorated the anniversary of her son’s death on Tuesday, sharing photos from their past on the Instagram page dedicated to her son’s memory. In between photos from Malcolm-Jamal’s childhood, Pamela included a lengthy statement about moving forward amid a year of “pain, hurt, loss and emotional de-stabilization.” Her statement talks about purpose, healing and a journey to “be better, improve and transform our spiritual selves.”

“During my year long journey, I have discovered how cruel, evil and greedy a human can be,” she wrote, seemingly alluding to the legal battle but not naming her daughter-in-law. “I have also discovered the depth of love, care, concern and support that humans are capable of. All of which I have been the recipient of. The good, the bad, and the ugly. These are the lessons that I apparently will need as I continue my journey.”

The Writers Guild of America sued Paramount on Tuesday, alleging that the company’s planned $111-billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery violates federal antitrust law.
The union said that with fewer competitors, the merged Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery business would be able to lower costs by reducing writers’ wages and work.

“Writers will be paid less and have fewer employment opportunities,” the WGA said in its lawsuit.

The move comes a day after California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta led a coalition of 12 Democratic state attorneys general who filed a federal lawsuit to block Paramount Skydance’s $111-billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

Bonta has separately asked a judge in San Francisco for a temporary restraining order to hold up the deal while his case is pending in court.

“We feel we have a very strong case,” Bonta said Tuesday during a town hall meeting. “This proposed merger will raise prices. It will lower quality. It will reduce output. It will hurt the American people, and it’ll hurt the the economy and competition.”

The writers guild’s missive creates a second line of attack against tech scion David Ellison’s industry-reshaping deal.

Ellison’s proposed merger has been moving closer to the finish line after securing approvals from the U.S. Justice Department and numerous other foreign governments. President Trump, an ally of Ellison’s billionaire father Larry Ellison, favors the deal.

David Ellison wants to close the deal by September to avoid a higher payout to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders.

A Paramount spokeswoman said the company is reviewing the lawsuit.

The proposed merger has sparked fears in Hollywood that it would bring thousands of job losses — similar to past consolidations, including Walt Disney Co.’s 2019 takeover of Fox entertainment properties.

“The Writers Guild of America will not stand idly by as Paramount attempts to violate our country’s antitrust laws and deepen the contraction entertainment workers already feel,” said Writers Guild of America East President Tom Fontana in a statement. “This proposed combined entity would be the largest employer of writers, with tremendous power to suppress our wages, eliminate opportunities for emerging writers, cut jobs across the industry, and produce less programming, affecting the range of storytelling. This merger is not inevitable and we are fighting to stop it.”

July 10 (UPI) — Apple on Friday filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and former Apple employees that work their for stealing confidential product information for the artificial intelligence company’s use.

The lawsuit specifically names two former Apple employees who allegedly handed over information to OpenAI when they joined the company that related to products they worked on at their former employer, The Hill reported.

In its filing, Apple said that OpenAI has been telling employees it hires away from the company to bring design information, prototypes and other information on how it makes its products.

There are, reportedly, more than 400 former Apple employees working for OpenAI, in addition to the company’s partnership with former Apple design chief Jony Ive’s io and his effort to lead the AI company’s hardware development.

“At Apple, our teams are constantly developing breakthrough technologies to create the best products and services in the world, and protecting their work and intellectual property is something we take very seriously,” an Apple spokesperson told 9to5Mac.

“Recently, significant evidence has emerged suggesting individuals employed by OpenAI wrongfully took Apple’s secret and confidential information regarding our unreleased technologies, process and products,” the spokesperson said.

Apple alleged its former vice president of product design, Tang Tan, has told Apple employees that he is interviewing for roles at OpenAI that they should bring things from Apple headquarters for “show and tell” sessions.

OpenAI denied the allegations in a statement, saying that the company remains “focused on building innovative technology that empowers people” and has “no interest in other companies’ trade secrets.”

July 10 (UPI) — The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Maryland on Thursday challenging the state’s laws that limit local law enforcement’s cooperation with immigration agents, the latest legal salvo in the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

Federal lawyers with the Justice Department’s Civil Division have filed about 20 lawsuits against so-called sanctuary policies that the Trump administration argues violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, under which federal law supersedes state policies.

“Federal immigration officers merely enforce the laws that our nation’s elected representatives in Congress passed, reflecting the will of ‘We the People,'” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said in a statement.

“When sanctuary jurisdictions enact laws to shield illegal aliens from federal law enforcement, it is not merely federal law that is violated, but the voices of everyday American voters silenced.”

The Community Trust Act, passed by Maryland’s General Assembly, took effect immediately on May 31, 2026, limiting local cooperation with federal immigration authorities amid the Trump administration’s aggressive crackdown.

Opponents criticize the law as permitting the harboring of undocumented migrants, while advocates argue such policies are needed to create safe communities by reducing barriers that hinder immigrants from communicating with law enforcement.

In the lawsuit, the Justice Department argues that by enforcing the Community Trust Act, Maryland was unlawfully interfering with the federal government’s enforcement of federal law, in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

“Maryland has no lawful interest in assisting removable aliens to evade federal law enforcement. The state’s prohibitions on cooperation with federal immigration agencies have endangered public safety, resulting in criminals being released into Maryland rather than turned over to immigration authorities for removal from the United States, as required by Congress,” the federal lawyers said in the complaint.

“The challenged laws are not a mere passive effort to avoid providing state or local resources to federal officials but rather are an active and deliberate effort to obstruct federal immigration enforcement.”

The Maryland Freedom Caucus, a group of Republican state delegates, celebrated the lawsuit’s announcement in a Thursday statement, saying it is challenging “Maryland’s dangerous penchant for favoring noncitizens over lawful Marylanders.”

From targeting sanctuary laws to seeking to end humanitarian protections for migrants from crisis-hit countries, the Trump administration has sought to remove obstacles to its mass deportation campaign, drawing staunch opposition from civil and human rights advocates.

Under a Trump executive order, the Justice Department has identified dozens of states, counties and cities, mostly Democratic-led, that have sanctuary laws.

An upstate New York resident sued U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for sending federal officers to his house with a warning over an email he sent to the agency’s one-time head.

David Streever, who is a U.S. citizen, was on a trip to Finland when two officers showed up to his Rochester home in June and presented his wife with a warning notice informing him that the email he sent months earlier was considered a threat, his attorneys said. Streever sent the email in January to Todd Lyons, then the acting director of ICE, after an immigration officer fatally shot Minneapolis resident Renee Good during an anti-ICE demonstration.

Streever’s email called Lyons “a monstrous human being” who “will never know peace.” In a lawsuit filed Monday in Washington, he said the agency violated his 1st Amendment rights.

Streever is one of at least two residents of upstate New York who was served with a federal warning in June in the wake of criticizing ICE online. The Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is representing Streever, and said it filed the lawsuit because Streever’s right to free expression was violated.

“This is very clearly within the protection of the 1st Amendment,” said Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney with the foundation. “It was in the context of political speech.”

Representatives for ICE previously declined to comment on the warning to Streever, citing an ongoing investigation, and the agency did not immediately comment Monday. The suit also names Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, whose office also did not immediately comment.

“ICE investigates all credible threats towards its employees and officers, including threats to the ICE Director,” the agency said in a statement last week.

The entirety of the three-paragraph email, which carried the subject line “What’s next,” and referenced a leader in Nazi Germany:

“You are a monstrous human being and will go down in history as America’s Reinhard Heydrich, the butcher.

“The way you are protecting the obvious execution in Minnesota, even as we see the videos, will lead to your downfall. Even Trump will turn on you before the end, and you will be a sad, despised man who eats himself alive with shame at your own pathetic weakness.

“You will never know peace. You will seek to lose yourself, to escape the burden of knowing the truth about yourself. But wherever you go, you will find yourself. You will torment yourself until your last day on Earth.”

Federal agents also attempted to confront Streever at a hotel in New York City when he returned from Finland, but they were turned away by hotel staff, Steinbaugh said.

Federal officials went to Streever’s house the same week that officials visited Paigelynne Gonyea, a poll worker, at a voting location during New York’s primaries to confront her about a social media post.

Gonyea believes the warning stemmed from writing “I think today is a great day for Jonathan to be indicted,” in a post with a picture of Jonathan Ross, the ICE officer who shot and killed Good. She posted it in January, after Ross had already been identified by the news media.

Lauren Bis, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, shared an image of a different social media post from Gonyea in which she said Gonyea shared Ross’ address. Part of that post was redacted.

Bis said in a statement in June that Gonyea “committed a federal crime by posting the address of an ICE law enforcement officer online” and “if you doxx our officers, we will investigate you, and you will be brought to justice.”

A representative for the New York Attorney General’s Office has said the office is aware of the two residents’ contact with federal agents. The representative has said the office has been reviewing the interaction between Gonyea and federal agents that took place at the polls.

Whittle writes for the Associated Press.

July 1 (UPI) — John Brennan, former director of the CIA and a longtime foe of the Trump administration, filed a lawsuit Wednesday asking a federal court to preserve all records related to the administration’s investigation of him.

The Justice Department has been eyeing Brennan for months, with lawyers interviewing former intelligence officials and issuing subpoenas as part of a conspiracy investigation, The Washington Post reported.

Justice Department officials have alleged that Brennan and others violated President Donald Trump‘s civil rights in a conspiracy back to the Obama administration that included efforts to prosecute Trump and investigate his ties to Russia, The Post said. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, also referred Brennan to the Justice Department, alleging that he lied during testimony to Congress.

Brennan’s attorneys requested that a judge order the administration to preserve any internal records and communications from the investigation.

The records could be used as part of defense arguments that the investigation and any prosecution are part of Trump’s attempt to vindictively punish Brennan, the attorneys said, citing an administration policy “of using criminal process and prosecution to punish the president’s perceived adversaries,” The Post said.

“Administration officials from the acting attorney general to the FBI director and the counselor overseeing the Brennan investigations have been publicly declaring Director Brennan a criminal, not only before securing a conviction in court but even before a full investigation and indictment,” the lawyers wrote, CNN reported.

“And, certain officials in the Department of Justice are engaging in demonstrably irregular prosecutorial activity in order to gin up a case that will satisfy the president’s direction,” they wrote.

Brennan has also said the court should preserve any records that could be used in any broader “grand conspiracy” investigation by the Justice Department. He has denied any wrongdoing. The lawsuit names Trump, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel and prosecutors in Florida overseeing the investigation.

California’s effort to restrict sales of handguns that can be converted into fully-automatic machine guns drew an immediate federal challenge Wednesday, with the Trump administration suing the state over its new “Glock ban” law just hours after it took effect.

The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking a court order to block the controversial state law that limits where most Glock and Glock-style pistols can be sold. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, also aims to invalidate key parts of the state’s handgun roster — a list that dictates the types of firearms that Californians may legally purchase. In a statement Wednesday, acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said that both policies “trample” the rights of law-abiding Californians.

“The Second Amendment is a sacred right belonging to all Americans, even those in California,” Blanche said. “California cannot ban the most popular type of handgun in America.”

California’s Assembly Bill 1127 does not explicitly name the Glock brand, but instead targets any handgun with a specific mechanism that can easily be converted by a black market device. These simple “Glock switches” convert semiautomatic handguns into a weapon capable of firing 20 rounds per second with a single squeeze of the trigger.

Advances in 3D printing have made the conversion devices widely available and cheap to produce. Federal authorities reported recovering 11,088 of them from crime scenes between 2019 and 2023. Switches have been used in several mass shootings, including one in Sacramento that resulted in six deaths and 12 injuries in 2022.

The new law does not prohibit the possession of affected handguns already owned by Californians, and includes exemptions for gun dealers, as well as law enforcement and military agencies.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill in October, and has maintained that firearm laws are responsible for California’s declining crime rates and gun deaths.

“The Trump administration is once again trying to dismantle California’s commonsense gun safety laws,” Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for the governor, said in a statement. “Our response is simple — these laws save lives.”

The federal government argues in its complaint that California can’t ban legal semiautomatic handguns simply because they could be illegally altered, adding that state and federal law already prohibit such pistol converters. The U.S. compared California’s approach to banning ordinary shotguns because they can be illegally shortened.

The lawsuit also challenges California’s decades-old handgun roster, which requires new handgun models to pass certain safety tests before they can be approved for retail sale. A federal judge tentatively blocked portions of the roster requirements in a separate 2023 case, which is being appealed before the 9th Circuit. That lawsuit was filed by the California Rifle & Pistol Assn. and other gun rights supporters following a landmark 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that set new standards for evaluating firearm restrictions.

Under those new guidelines, the Trump administration wants a judge to find that California’s gun restrictions violate the 2nd Amendment, and is seeking an order to bar the state from enforcing them.

The Trump administration is relying on a federal civil rights law typically used against police departments accused of repeated constitutional violations, arguing that California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and state Justice Department agents qualify as peace officers and therefore violate gun owners’ rights whenever they enforce handgun restrictions.

Bonta, who is named in the suit, has a winning court record over the Trump administration, and has secured at least 12 final court rulings and more than 35 preliminary injunctions or emergency orders.

“We won’t be intimidated by another politically motivated lawsuit,” said Crofts-Pelayo, Newsom’s spokesperson. “We’ll continue defending the laws that protect Californians and keep dangerous weapons off our streets.”

June 30 (UPI) — The Department of Justice and 17 state attorneys general filed suit against five egg producers for alleged “unlawful coordinated manipulation of egg prices,” a press release said Tuesday.

The department’s Antitrust Division filed suit against Cal-Maine Foods, Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Centrum Valley Holdings, Versova Holdings and Versova Management Cooperative for unlawful coordinated manipulation of egg prices, the release said.

The department also “filed proposed settlements that will, if approved by the court, prevent these companies from engaging in such coordinated manipulation in the future.”

“No product more quintessentially represents affordability than the price Americans pay for eggs,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said in a statement. “These actions prove this department’s continued commitment to protecting competition and providing real relief for everyday Americans’ pocketbooks.”

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, the complaint alleges that Cal-Maine, Hickman’s and Versova coordinated to artificially inflate the daily quotations of Urner Barry Publications, a market reporting company whose publications affect prices that grocery stores, restaurants and others pay for eggs nationwide, the release said.

The complaint also alleges that egg price quotations dropped significantly from their peak after the companies learned of the department’s investigation and were told to save documents in March 2025, the release said.

The attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin joined the complaint and proposed settlements.

June 30 (UPI) — The Trump administration has filed lawsuits challenging Massachusetts and Rhode Island laws that offer in-state tuition benefits to certain undocumented immigrants, alleging they unlawfully discriminate against U.S. citizens.

The lawsuits announced Monday are the latest the Justice Department has filed against state laws that offer in-state rates, financial aid or scholarships to certain undocumented immigrants who meet state residency or education requirements, which generally consist of living in the state for a number of years and attending high school there.

Justice Department lawyers allege these laws are illegal because they offer noncitizens benefits denied to U.S. citizens from other states.

“The Department of Justice is committed to fulfilling President Trump’s promise that illegal aliens will not receive taxpayer benefits or preferential treatment over America’s own citizens,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said in a statement.

“As our nation marks 250 years of freedom, we will continue to challenge state laws that place aliens over citizens in clear defiance of Congress’ commands.”

Massachusetts has extended eligibility for in-state tuition benefits, financial aid and scholarships at Massachusetts state schools to qualifying undocumented immigrants since 2023, while Rhode Island has allowed qualifying undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition costs going back to 2011. Rhode Island then codified this law in 2021.

The lawsuits filed Monday ask the courts to enjoin enforcement of these laws, saying they violate a federal statute, enacted in 1996, that specifically bans offering in-state tuition to any noncitizen “unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

Proponents of these laws, sometimes referred to as Dream Act laws, argue that without offering in-state tuition rates, post-secondary education will be kept out of reach for undocumented immigrants living in the United States, while such laws can reduce high school dropout rates as well as raise student incomes and tax contributions, among other economic benefits.

The Trump administration has been targeting these laws as part of President Donald Trump‘s aggressive immigration policy that has seen mass roundups and deportations of noncitizens.

In April 2025, Trump signed an executive order directing the attorney general to identify and stop the enforcement of state laws and policies “favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens,” specifically highlighting laws that “provide in-state higher education tuition to aliens but not to out-of-state American citizens.”

Since then, federal prosecutors have challenged laws in 12 states. Four lawsuits, against Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Nebraska, have resulted in orders permanently enjoining the states’ in-state tuition laws, while Kansas last week joined the Justice Department in seeking a proposed consent decree that must be approved by the court.

The remaining challenges are pending against Illinois, Minnesota, Virginia, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, all Democratic-led states.

According to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, about 20 states and Washington, D.C., provide in-state tuition to undocumented students, while 18 and the nation’s capital also provide state financial aid.

The embattled Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority sued the Trump administration on Monday to stop it from depriving the region of hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, saying the effort is unwarranted and violates federal laws.

The authority, better known as LAHSA, said in its Monday filing that cutting off the funds would put more than 11,000 people — 1,900 of them children — at risk of losing housing or other services.

LAHSA, a joint city-county agency overseen by political appointees, is seeking a temporary restraining order to bar the federal Housing and Urban Development Department from suspending the funds.

“The people who will be harmed by this decision are not bureaucrats,” said Gita O’Neill, LAHSA’s interim chief executive officer, in a statement Monday. “They are families, veterans, seniors, and formerly homeless Angelenos who rely on these resources to remain housed.”

The filing in federal court comes nearly three weeks after HUD officials said they were suspending LAHSA from applying for or receiving federal funds, citing financial mismanagement, fraud and a lack of safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest.

In its 46-page lawsuit, LAHSA pushed back on HUD’s allegations, saying they were not supported by the evidence. Lawyers for LAHSA portrayed HUD’s actions as part of a larger political agenda — elimination of the federally approved “Continuum of Care” system, which makes LAHSA the overarching applicant for most federal homelessness funding across Los Angeles County.

The Trump administration “has made clear it wants to scrap the program entirely in favor of a homelessness policy favoring criminal enforcement, drug treatment, institutionalization and civil commitment of the mentally ill,” the lawsuit states.

HUD officials have said they are barring LAHSA from applying for funds on behalf of the Continuum of Care, which covers 85 cities, including Los Angeles. LAHSA secured $220 million in federal funds for various agencies in 2024 and $944 million since 2021, according to the June 11 letter from HUD Deputy Secretary Andrew D. Hughes.

HUD did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In the letter, Hughes said his agency had received information that LAHSA “may have committed violations of federal law” while carrying out its obligations as part of its HUD grant agreements.

“HUD has evidence that LAHSA’s repeated false statements and its irresponsible actions and failures, including its lack of financial management, internal controls, and safeguards against conflicts of interest, pose a threat to HUD, the public, and those living on the streets of Los Angeles,” he wrote.

In the letter, Hughes said that HUD’s inspector general had opened an investigation. Depending on the outcome, the money could be restored or LAHSA could be permanently barred from receiving funds.

LAHSA, in its lawsuit, said HUD has not provided any investigative findings to show violations of the funding agreements. Instead, agency lawyers said, federal officials relied on “a mash-up of old news articles, comments from public officials taken out of context, and findings from routine public audits that included recommendations that were all appropriately actioned.”

Lawyers for LAHSA contend that HUD’s actions violate the U.S. Constitution and override the dictates of Congress, which established many of the processes for distributing federal homeless funds.

The vast majority of the federal funds secured by LAHSA as a grant applicant goes toward permanent housing, agency officials said.

LAHSA, created in 1993, is overseen by a 10-member commission, half from the city and half from the county. Among those commissioners is L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, who has made homelessness a central part of her agenda. Each of the five county supervisors has an appointee.

At stake in the battle between HUD and LAHSA is an array of services affecting some of the region’s most vulnerable residents.

LAHSA oversees the Homeless Management Information System, the federally-mandated software that tracks homeless people across the county. It has 8,000 individual users and is used by more than 300 agencies, according to the lawsuit.

HUD’s plan to suspend the funding would prevent LAHSA from using the system to match Angelenos — those on the street and in shelters — with housing and services, the lawsuit said.

LAHSA also oversees the annual “point in time” homelessness count across the county. Agency officials have pointed to the results from those counts as evidence that they have been making steady headway, with homelessness decreasing 4.3% countywide and 5.5% within Los Angeles between 2023 and 2025.

Unsheltered homelessness, which tallies the people living outside or in their vehicles, fell by a larger margin, declining 14% across the county and 17.5% within L.A. during that period.

Despite those numbers, LAHSA’s reputation has been battered by some highly critical assessments.

Last year, a global consulting firm retained as part of a federal lawsuit over the city of L.A.’s response to homelessness found that homeless services provided by LAHSA and the city lacked adequate financial controls, leaving the system vulnerable to waste and fraud.

Several months earlier, county auditors identified lax accounting procedures that resulted in LAHSA’s failure to pay its contractors on time. Even after that report was issued, nonprofit groups with LAHSA contracts continued to report that payments were behind schedule.

Last year, the county Board of Supervisors reached a breaking point, pulling more than $300 million — the vast majority of its funds — out of LAHSA and creating its own homelessness department. City officials have been weighing a similar move in recent months.

Lawsuit claims Tesla’s Autopilot shortcomings led to fatal crash; family seeks $1m in damages and punitive measures.

The family of a Texas woman who was killed has filed a lawsuit against Tesla after a driver using a Model 3’s automated driving assistance system crashed into a suburban Houston home last week.

The complaint, filed on Tuesday, argues that Tesla should be held liable for the wrongful death of 76-year-old Martha Avila. The family alleges that the automaker, led by Elon Musk, failed to adequately warn drivers about alleged defects in its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving systems.

Avila’s daughter, Jennifer Barbour, and her husband, Justin Barbour, said the Model 3’s driver, Michael Butler, told law enforcement he engaged Autopilot before ploughing through the front wall of Avila’s home in Katy, Texas, the United States, on June 19, pinning her before she succumbed to her injuries at a nearby hospital, according to the complaint.

Video obtained by KHOU – Houston’s CBS affiliate — shows the car travelling at top speed over the front lawn of Avila’s home in the Houston suburb before slamming into the front room.

The driver told the Harris County Sheriff’s Office that he was using the technology at the time of the accident. The driver in the incident was not under the influence of alcohol and is cooperating with authorities.

Butler is also a defendant in the Barbours’ lawsuit. It is unclear whether he has a lawyer.

Musk, the world’s richest person, posted on X on Monday night: “FSD drives slowly through neighbourhood streets and this was a high-speed crash!”

Ashok Elluswamy, vice president of AI software at Tesla, posted on X in response, saying that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area.”

The lawsuit filed in a Harris County, Texas, state court seeks more than $1m in damages, and punitive damages reflecting Tesla’s alleged “reckless disregard for a substantial risk of severe bodily injury”.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been investigating the crash.

Since 2016, the NHTSA has opened nearly 50 special investigations of Tesla crashes believed to involve advanced driver assistance systems. About two dozen deaths were reported.

In March, the NHTSA escalated its probe into 3.2 million Teslas equipped with Full Self-Driving, on concern the system may fail to detect or warn drivers in poor visibility. In 2023, Tesla recalled about two million vehicles, nearly all of its electric vehicles on US roads, to better ensure that drivers pay attention when using Autopilot.

Tesla has said Autopilot enables vehicles to steer, accelerate and brake within their lanes, while Full Self-Driving lets vehicles obey traffic signals and change lanes.

The carmaker has also said both technologies require “fully attentive” drivers whose hands are on the wheel.

The incident comes as the Musk-owned company is rolling out robotaxis using automated software in several US cities this year and plans to invite Tesla owners across the country to put their cars into the fleet using the same system.

JUNEAU, Alaska — A man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan on Monday challenged a decision by a top state elections official to disqualify his candidacy and remove him from the August primary ballot.

A court filing, on behalf of the challenger Sullivan by his attorneys, said the decision by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher disqualifying him violates state and federal law. It asks that he be placed on the ballot. Sullivan, a retired teacher from the small fishing community of Petersburg, has maintained that he’s a qualified candidate for U.S. Senate and that election officials lacked a legal basis to boot him from the ballot.

The U.S. Constitution lays out three exclusive qualifications for the Senate, addressing age, citizenship and residency, his attorneys wrote.

“Nothing in Alaska law regulates in any way the private motivations that draw individuals to declare or campaign for office,” the filing by attorneys Jeffrey Robinson, Bryn Pallesen and Zoe Eisberg states.

Sullivan’s entrance into the race, days before the June 1 filing deadline, drew condemnation from Sen. Sullivan and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. They called the challenger a sham candidate and alleged he was working with Democrats to boost Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola’s chances in the race. Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger.

Sen. Sullivan and Peltola are the highest-profile contenders in a race with more than a dozen candidates. It’s one of the most prominent U.S. Senate races in this year’s midterm elections — one both parties consider crucial to their efforts to control the chamber.

Steve Kirch, a spokesperson for the division, said the agency had no comment and does not discuss “ongoing reviews, investigations or related proceedings.” Beecher has previously noted that ballots are due to be printed on Sunday.

Alaska Department of Law spokesperson Sam Curtis said the agency will defend the division’s finding and looked forward to a swift ruling from the court.

On June 15, a week after Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom announced an investigation into the challenger Sullivan’s run, Beecher disqualified him. She concluded that his declaration of candidacy “was not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy for the office of United States Senator, but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality.”

In announcing an investigation, Dahlstrom cited “credible allegations” that Sullivan declared his candidacy “in coordination with another candidate and campaign” with an intent to confuse and “manipulate” voters. But in removing the challenger from the ballot, Beecher did not mention finding any evidence of alleged coordination with Peltola or Democratic Party officials.

The challenger Sullivan, when asked in an interview with the Associated Press earlier this month if he’d had any contact with Peltola’s campaign, responded ”zero, none, zilch.”

Beecher said she based her decision on factors including that he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and in conjunction with his candidacy changed his party affiliation to Republican. She cited similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, and his work with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats.

The form congressional candidates in Alaska complete asks them how they would like to be referred to on the ballot and their preferred party affiliation.

Beecher said she acted in line with a regulation that says a candidate’s name may not appear on a ballot with academic or professional titles or “in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.”

In response to questions from Democratic state Rep. Andrew Gray, legislative attorney Andrew Dunmire last week said the regulation cited by Beecher does not forbid placing Sullivan’s name on the ballot. He said the elections division could comply with it by designing the ballot in a way that allows voters to distinguish between both Sullivans.

It’s a position echoed by the attorneys for the challenger Sullivan.

The challenger initially had been certified and listed on the state’s candidate list as Dan J. Sullivan. The senator was listed as Dan S. Sullivan and denoted as the incumbent.

Alaska has open primaries in which the top four vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the ranked-choice general election.

Bohrer writes for the Associated Press.

Tyra Banks has filed a defamation lawsuit against Netflix and the directors of “Reality Check: Inside America’s Next Top Model” claiming that she was manipulated and misrepresented in the series.

The three-part documentary, directed by married duo Mor Loushy and Daniel Sivan, revisited the reality show’s rise and many controversies, including former contestant Shandi Sullivan discussing what she described as a blackout sexual encounter that took place during Cycle 2 of the series and was a major plot point because Sullivan was in a relationship.

Sullivan said in “Reality Check” that she felt like producers should have stepped in considering she was heavily intoxicated, but instead they followed her into the bathroom and bedroom to record a sexual encounter with a male model. In a following scene, Banks lectures Sullivan about cheating and “carnal” temptation.

“Tyra Banks participated in the Netflix documentary series about ‘America’s Next Top Model’ because she believed viewers deserved a candid conversation about the show’s legacy — its successes and its shortcomings,” reads the lawsuit. “There are aspects of the show for which Ms. Banks takes accountability and she wanted ANTM viewers to hear that from her directly.”

The lawsuit, filed on Saturday in the Central District of California, claims that the supermodel turned media personality participated in a 3½-hour interview, of which about 16 minutes was used.

“The producers used what could be stripped of context and reassembled to support a false and defamatory narrative unrelated to what she actually expressed,” reads the suit. “The accountability Banks took ended up on the cutting room floor.”

The suit alleges that producers used “selective editing, deliberate omission and surgical manipulation of continuous footage” to create a false narrative that Banks “knowingly allowed a contestant to be sexually assaulted on her show, exploited that contestant’s trauma for ratings, and then could not even remember it when asked.”

Banks claims that she asked Netflix and the producers of the docuseries for access to the unedited footage of her 3½-hour interview, and proposed they work together to “correct the record.”

“Had they agreed, Ms. Banks could have made the truth public and this litigation would likely have been unnecessary,” reads the suit.

According to the suit, Banks was pitched the docuseries as a “definitive three-hour Netflix docuseries exploring America’s Next Top Model as a groundbreaking popculture phenomenon.” The pitch had a Netflix logo on its cover, and Banks had “long trusted and admired Netflix.” The streamer’s involvement was the reason Banks claims she considered the project.

Banks claims the pitch included promises that the documentary would unpack the show’s legacy “not as a takedown, but as a thoughtful in-depth reflection on its influence, evolution, and impact on fashion, television, and culture.”

The suit claims Banks was prepared for a fair comeuppance, but ultimately the former supermodel felt hoodwinked. “Nothing suggested that the project would falsely accuse Ms. Banks of covering up a sexual assault, or being indifferent to what a contestant characterizes as a traumatic experience.”

In February, directors for “Reality Check” revealed that Banks wasn’t invited to participate in the docuseries until well after production began

“It was like, ‘Hey, this can be a great addition, but definitely not a necessity,’” Sivan said. “People talking trash about her is very easy to find. … But having her passion, bringing this program to life, is something that only she could tell.”

Sivan and Loushy, who also helmed the acclaimed 2025 docuseries “American Manhunt: Osama bin Laden,” said they treated “Reality Check” with the same level of care as previous heavyweight projects.

“There were things that were sensitive and important for me,” Loushy said, from the harassment that she said “ANTM” contestants endured to the insecurities that “to us as women, are sitting tight and hard every day on our heart.”

The directing duo hoped to examine the good intentions Banks and producers had, of turning the fashion industry on its head, empowering women and championing diversity, and the way those intentions evolved as the show moved through cycles.

“At the end of the day, was it a force of good, or was it a force of evil? I hope people keep debating that,” Sivan said.

Former Times staff writer Malia Mendez contributed to this report.

The Washington National Opera filed a lawsuit on Thursday that demands more than $17 million from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The opera company claims it is owed millions in donations that have been withheld.

The lawsuit claims that after the opera company and the Kennedy Center parted ways in January, center officials have not returned more than $17 million in gifts and donations that belong to the opera company. The lawsuit lists the federal government as a defendant because the Kennedy Center was established by Congress.

According to the suit, the opera company and the Kennedy Center had a longstanding contract in which WNO produced its operas at the Kennedy Center, which in return, provided a number of services and other support for the opera company including managing its donations.

In late 2025, after approximately 15 years of affiliation, the suit claims that the Kennedy Center stopped performing the obligations of their agreement, which included marketing, fundraising and administrative support, as well as timely reporting on the growth of the opera company’s funds. When the opera company requested the Kennedy Center remedy the issue, center officials asked to sever ties.

“Five months have now passed since the termination of the affiliation, and the Kennedy Center still has not returned the funds to WNO,” reads the suit. “To the contrary, according to the Kennedy Center’s Chief Financial Officer, the Kennedy Center has put a significant portion of WNO’s money at risk by using it to collateralize the Kennedy Center’s line of credit.”

In an emailed statement responding to the lawsuit, Roma Daravi, a spokeswoman for the Kennedy Center, told The Times that the contract between the opera house and the center financially burdened the center for more than a decade. The statement claimed that taking into account the company’s endowment, an external accounting firm calculated that the opera company had “accumulated a $72 million deficit to the center” between 2011 and 2026.

“The Center has acted transparently and in the best interests of the public throughout this process,” the statement reads. “This lawsuit is meritless, and we plan to pursue a countersuit to defend the institution.”

The legal action comes during a tumultuous time for the Kennedy Center. Last year, President Trump fired the board and appointed himself chairman of the Kennedy Center.

In December, President Trump’s name was installed on the exterior of the center the day after his handpicked board of trustees voted to change the institution’s name to the “Trump-Kennedy Center.” Last month, a federal judge ordered President Trump’s name to be removed from the exterior of the building within two weeks and a halt to the Trump administration’s planned two-year closure of the venue.

On Friday, the court-ordered deadline for removing his name sparked widespread interest and crowds gathered outside the center. A live cam was also placed near the structure.

The Times arts editor Jessica Gelt contributed to this report.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Santa Clara County officials announced a new lawsuit against the Trump administration that aims to block a planned immigration facility near Gilroy.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. district court in San Jose, alleges that the leased land is zoned elusively for agricultural use and that the federal government violated laws requiring state and county notification, as well as procedural steps required before beginning construction.

The agency told the San José Spotlight that the project is an ICE office and denied that it would be a detention center. But state and local officials believe the facility will be used for short-term detention of up to 150 people at a time.

“The administration is trying to jam through a new facility on a community that does not want it, bulldozing over laws, shrouding their plans in secrecy and ignoring calls from the community to stop,” Bonta said during a news conference in San José, adding that it marks the 71st lawsuit filed by his office against the Trump administration.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The suit also argues that the property is in an area known to support several endangered and threatened species and that a facility there would strain the limited waste disposal and drinking water infrastructure.

Santa Clara County officials said they weren’t notified last year when the federal government, intending to build a facility for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, leased nearly 25 acres of unincorporated land just outside of Gilroy. The parcel includes three buildings, greenhouses and a large agricultural field, according to the lawsuit.

Community members alerted the county about the forthcoming facility earlier this year and have protested the plans. Construction began early last month, according to the lawsuit.

The plot of land sits 3 miles southeast of the Gilroy Premium Outlets, at 7240 Holsclaw Road, federal procurement records show. The Department of Homeland Security secured a 20-year, $26.5-million lease from a subsidiary of the Beverly Hills-based Elmwood Capital Group, a real estate investment firm.

ICE also has a processing facility in nearby Morgan Hill.

According to the lawsuit, agricultural research companies that previously occupied the property generated hazardous waste that wasn’t properly disposed of.

“The federal government’s apparent failure to address — much less mitigate — these risks endanger the construction workers building the site, detainees and employees who will be located at the site, and the environment beneath and surrounding the site,” the lawsuit said.

According to the lawsuit, the federal government’s only formal communication with the county regarding the project was a one-paragraph letter dated June 21, 2023, and forwarded by an Elmwood Capital representative. The letter said the federal government was planning “office and operations space” there and that it should be exempt from local zoning and planning review.

“Part of the problem here is that they are trying to move forward with this project with as little transparency as possible, and hoping that nobody notices, nobody catches on to the details,” said Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti. “So, part of what our lawsuit will do is it will force that transparency to occur.”

ICE holding facilities have been the subject of multiple lawsuits since the start of the Trump administration over alleged overcrowding, poor conditions and confinement that went on for days and weeks.

Bonta and LoPresti said that the building of an ICE facility in Gilroy signals a desire by the federal government to increase enforcement in the area.

Advocates and local leaders have raised similar concerns in Dublin, another Bay Area city where federal officials are working to transfer ownership of a former prison. Congressional Democrats sent a letter earlier this month opposing the possibility that it could reopen as an immigrant detention facility.

Musicians have been left out of settlements between major record labels and AI companies, a new lawsuit alleges.

The American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM), which has 70,000 members, said Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group “received significant compensation” from the AI companies for past copyright violations and licensed “substantial” portions of their music catalogs to them, but haven’t shared that with the musicians.

UMG and WMG sued AI companies Udio and Suno in 2024, accusing them of copyright infringement. Both companies settled with Udio last year. In November, WMG announced a partnership with Suno, but Universal Music Group’s lawsuit against Suno is pending.

“While the Defendants protected their own interests and created a significant source of new revenue with the retrospective settlements and prospective licenses, they have refused to compensate the musicians whose work — created with their own instruments and through their talent, creativity, and hard work — is fed into AI machines for profit,” AFM said in its lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York on Friday.

AFM said it believes the AI settlements fall under the “new use” provision of its collective bargaining agreements, which requires music companies to notify the union of new licenses for purposes not covered by the contract and to compensate musicians, whose work was used to train AI models.

UMG and WMG said in statements that they are in negotiations on a collective bargaining agreement with AFM.

“Warner Music Group is growing the value of music by establishing guardrails and architecting a healthy AI ecosystem on behalf of artists everywhere,” the company said in a statement.

Universal Music Group said it will continue to work to resolve issues during the negotiations.

“Universal Music Group has been at the forefront of protecting the rights and advancing the interests of artists and songwriters in the age of AI — striking responsible AI licensing agreements to ensure they are compensated, leading the charge for legislation to further protect them and taking legal action against bad actors,” the company said in a statement.
“We expect to continue our strong working relationship with the AFM built on mutual respect for the talented musicians in our industry.”

AI has become more popular among consumers, dramatically changing the landscape in the entertainment industry. Many startups have popped up allowing users to type text prompts into AI systems to generate original songs, video clips and stories.

Some creatives say the AI tools help them brainstorm or illustrate bold ideas on a budget. But critics have raised concerns about whether AI systems are trained on copyrighted works without permission or payment to artists. Others are worried AI could eliminate their livelihoods.

Udio said it would create a new platform that would train on licensed and authorized music with artists having the ability to opt-in. Suno agreed to change its platform, launching new licensed models, and place download restrictions.

Bradford Auerbach, a partner at law firm OGC, said he expects to see more of these types of lawsuits filed by unions.

“You’ve got the unions always protecting the status quo, so you’ve got this invariable conflict of new technology coming in, and moving the cheese for a lot of people that were accustomed to having their business set up the way it was,” Auerbach said.

June 1 (UPI) — Florida’s attorney general announced Monday that the state is suing OpenAI and its founder and CEO, Sam Altman, saying the company chose “profits over public safety” in creating a dangerous product in the form of ChatGPT. It is the first state to sue the company over these design and safety concerns.

“The rise of OpenAI is attributable to a web of deceit and the exploitation of users (including Floridians), leveraging their data and safety to boost OpenAI’s market value at unacceptable costs,” the complaint filed by Attorney General James Uthmeier said, NBC News reported.

The lawsuit claims that OpenAI violated Florida’s rules on deceptive business practices and knew that its chatbot could be dangerous to children and others through actions such as providing “harmful information such as tips on eating disorders, self-harm and mass murder,” The New York Times reported. It says OpenAI presents “a great danger of addiction, cognitive decline, suicide, violence and related harms.”

The civil suit is separate from Florida’s ongoing criminal investigation into OpenAI, which Uthmeier openedin April. It includes multiple counts of deceptive and unfair trade practices, negligence, violations of product liability laws, fraudulent misrepresentation and causing a public nuisance.

OpenAI representatives have not yet commented on this lawsuit. Representatives have said in response to past claims that the company designs its systems with safety in mind and that there are “safeguards in placeto help people, especially teens, when conversations turn sensitive.”

“We continue improving ChatGPT’s training to recognize and respond to signs of mental and emotional distress, de-escalate conversations and guide people toward real-world support,” the company said in a prior statement.

The lawsuits also mentions OpenAI’s connections to a mass shooting at Florida State University and killings at the University of South Florida. In both cases, suspects asked ChatGPT for information connected to the attacks.

President Trump’s administration is suing four states over their refusal to issue undercover license plates to federal agents, the latest front in the wider struggle between the White House and Democratic-led states over the Republican president’s immigration crackdown.

The Department of Justice alleges in separate lawsuits announced Thursday that Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington state are imposing unconstitutional restrictions that it says impede law enforcement and threaten agents’ safety.

“By denying undercover license plates to DHS components, including ICE, while issuing them to their own state agencies, these governors are pursuing discriminatory and obstructionist policies against federal law enforcement,” said acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche in a statement.

“These actions undermine federal immigration enforcement, allow dangerous criminals to escape justice, and terrorize American communities,” Blanche added.

The Justice Department filed the suits on Wednesday in U.S. district courts in the respective states. The four state governments are accused of trying “to obstruct the Federal Government’s immigration enforcement efforts, even though control over immigration and the nation’s borders is an exclusive federal power.”

Additionally, the Justice Department argues in the suits that the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause bars state governments from regulating federal law enforcement.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who oversees her state’s plate program and is also a Democratic candidate for governor, said she’s confident her decisions will hold up in court.

“What ICE did in Maine and continues to do was terrorize our friends and neighbors,” Bellows said in an interview Thursday. “There are no secret police in a democracy and we will always stand up for our Mainers safety and freedom.”

A spokesperson for Massachusetts Atty. Gen. Joy Campbell said the state’s lawyers are “reviewing the complaint and will defend the RMV policy to the greatest extent possible.”

Officials in Washington and Oregon did not respond to a request for comment on the federal action.

Feds say agents are endangered when easily identified

The administration asserts that federal agents “frequently investigate and apprehend violent criminals, including cartel members, gang members, sex offenders, human traffickers, and other violent offenders” and says making those authorities easily identifiable subjects them to increased harassment and potential physical harm.

The lawsuit comes after a back-and-forth between the DOJ and some state officials. The administration previously sent state officials letters demanding they justify their policies.

Maine Atty. Gen. Aaron Frey answered the Justice Department last week, defending his state’s policy and disputing the DOJ’s contention that it has hampered federal enforcement actions.

“Rather, the program reflects a legitimate and constitutional policy choice by the SOS not to allow its resources to be commandeered by the federal government for use in civil immigration enforcement activities that have, in Maine and elsewhere, resulted in multiple incidents of abusive and unconstitutional conduct by DHS officials,” Frey wrote.

Bellows, in her role as secretary of state, announced a pause on confidential license plates in January, after federal authorities ramped up their immigration enforcement activities in the state. Bellows said at the time that the state wanted to be “assured that Maine plates will not be used for lawless purposes.”

The federal suit against Maine argues that the state “has issued confidential license plates to law enforcement agencies for many years” and that “such plates are explicitly authorized under Maine law.” The state’s review this year, the suit argues, resulted in unlawful state regulation of the federal government by requiring federal applicants for state license plates to attest that federal vehicles that obtained confidential plates would not be used for civil immigration enforcement. The suit also states that Maine did not impose commensurate requirements on state or local agencies applying for the plates, making the program discriminatory against the federal government.

Bellows has previously defended her decision.

“When ICE asked for confidential license plates, I said no” because “covert civil immigration enforcement is not something Maine will facilitate,” she said last week.

Arguments are similar to debate over agents’ masks

The Trump administration’s arguments on the license plates are similar to its defense of federal agents wearing masks on their deployments to American cities. That became a flashpoint in an extended government shutdown over Department of Homeland Security funding, as Democrats on Capitol Hill demanded key changes to how Trump’s mass deportation plans were carried out after masked federal agents killed two U.S. citizen protesters in Minnesota.

The White House and DHS have maintained the agency’s mask policy, and the administration already has won a federal court order blocking a California law that barred law enforcement officials from covering their faces in the state.

Additionally, the administration has been at odds with so-called sanctuary cities where local law enforcement does not assist federal authorities with immigration enforcement. And Blanche has instructed the Justice Department’s Civil Division to identify all state and local laws, policies, and practices that could impede what the administration describes as “lawful federal operations.”

Barrow and Whittle write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta. Whittle reported from Scarborough, Maine.

Perplexity unlawfully copied thousands of CNN stories, videos and images to power its products, CNN said in its lawsuit.

United States news channel CNN has filed a lawsuit against Perplexity in New York federal court, alleging the AI search engine provider is unlawfully distributing its copyrighted content, marking the latest legal tussle between the AI firm and a news publisher.

The complaint, filed on Thursday, said that Perplexity unlawfully copied thousands of CNN stories, videos and images to power its products and distribute “identical or substantially similar” competing content.

“You can’t copyright facts,” Perplexity spokesperson Jesse Dwyer said in response to the lawsuit.

CNN is asking for an unspecified amount of monetary damages and a court order blocking Perplexity from violating its intellectual property rights.

“CNN’s lawsuit stands for the proposition that Perplexity, a company valued at tens of billions of dollars, should not be able to steal from entities that create the original content Perplexity exploits,” the Warner Bros-owned news company said in a statement.

“By exploiting CNN’s reporting in this manner, Perplexity violates the protections afforded by copyright law and undermines the economic incentives that make original newsgathering possible,” CNN said in the complaint.

Since the launch of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in 2022, news publishers and writers have worried about their content being repurposed to appear in the results of a chatbot query, triggering battles over copyright, compensation and ownership.

CNN’s lawsuit is one of dozens of high-stakes US cases brought by copyright owners, including news outlets, authors and publishers, against tech companies over alleged misuse of their work to train large language models. Anthropic was the first AI company to settle one of these cases last year, agreeing to pay $1.5bn to resolve a class action lawsuit from a group of authors.

The CNN suit is the latest in a series of legal challenges brought against Perplexity, which uses AI to scour websites and answer users’ queries, alleging the company has infringed copyrights and unlawfully scraped data to train its technology.

Perplexity is also facing lawsuits from The New York Times, Reddit and Dow Jones, among others.

Several news firms have now signed licensing deals and partnerships with Big Tech and generative AI companies to ensure that their models have access to verified sources of news, while also compensating publishers and linking back to original articles.