sues

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.

WASHINGTON — Joe Biden sued the Justice Department on Tuesday in an effort to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts of the former president’s interview with a ghostwriter that were obtained by the special counsel who investigated his handling of classified documents.

Biden’s lawyers said in a lawsuit filed in Washington’s federal court that the Justice Department plans to release the files to Congress and a conservative group, the Heritage Foundation, after the department had previously argued that they were exempt from disclosure under the public records law.

Biden’s lawyers argued that the disclosure would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of President Biden’s privacy.”

“Every American, including a sitting or former Vice President, has a right to privacy in the personal conversations he has within his own home,” his attorneys wrote. “And when the U.S. Department of Justice obtains that private information through a criminal investigation, the Department bears a particular responsibility to protect it from disclosure.”

At issue in the case are audio recordings and transcripts of Biden’s interviews at his home in 2016 and 2017 with Mark Zwonitzer, who worked with Biden on his two memoirs. The files were scrutinized by special counsel Robert Hur as part of his investigation into the president’s improper retention of classified documents, from his time as a senator and as vice president.

Hur’s yearlong investigation led to a 345-page report that questioned Biden’s age and mental competence but recommended no criminal charges against the then-81-year-old. Hur said he found insufficient evidence to successfully prosecute a case in court.

Biden has separately fought the release of the audio of his interview with Hur. The House in 2024 voted to hold Biden Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over that audio after the White House exerted executive privilege, shielding it from Congress.

The transcripts of five hours of Biden interviews with federal prosecutors was released that same year. While Biden was adamant that he treated classified information seriously, the transcript shows that he was at times fuzzy about dates and details and he said he was unfamiliar with the paper trail for some of the sensitive documents he handled.

Republicans have argued Biden was being given a pass by his own Justice Department and that Trump had been unfairly victimized by prosecutors. Democrats, for their part, stressed Biden’s cooperation in the investigation and strongly contrasted that with the separate criminal case against Trump, who was accused of refusing to return classified documents requested by the National Archives that he had at his Florida estate.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

May 27 (UPI) — Former President Joe Biden filed suit against the Department of Justice Tuesday to block the release of unredacted audio recordings and transcripts of his private conversations with the ghostwriter of his 2017 memoir.

In 2024, the Heritage Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act to get Biden’s comments to Mark Zwonitzer while writing, Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose.

Under the Biden administration, the Justice Department had withheld the materials. But when Trump took over the presidency, “the Department has reversed that position,” the suit said.

In February, Biden’s attorney Amy Jeffress wrote, “without any formal explanation for its about-face, the Department notified President Biden of its intention to release the audio recordings and transcripts to the plaintiffs in the FOIA Action.”

On May 5, “the Office of the Deputy Attorney General informed President Biden, through counsel, that the Department had made a final decision to release the materials, with limited redactions, to the Heritage Plaintiffs and to Congress on June 15,” the lawsuit says.

“Every American, including a sitting or former vice president, has a right to privacy in the personal conversations he has within his own home,” Jeffress wrote in the lawsuit. “And when the U.S. Department of Justice obtains that private information through a criminal investigation, the Department bears a particular responsibility to protect it from disclosure.”

The documents were from records that then-special counsel Robert Hur used to write some parts of a 2023 report on Biden’s handling of classified documents that described him as “painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries.” Hur didn’t bring charges against Biden.

Redacted transcripts of those conversations have already been released to the public.

Rep. Jim Jordan, D-Ohio, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said he wanted the tapes released.

“I think it’s just important for the American people to know exactly where the President of the United States was… . (W)e’d like to see all that information, I think, to underscore what the Democrats were trying to hide just a few years ago,” CNN reported Jordan said.

May 27 (UPI) — Federal prosecutors are suing the University of California, alleging civil rights violations were committed in connection with pro-Palestinian campus protests, the latest lawsuit by the Trump administration, which has targeted universities over issues from antisemitism to their hiring practices.

The Trump administration has taken dozens of actions against higher education institutions, including investigations, lawsuits and funding freezes, in what critics describe as an effort to crack down on left-leaning ideology in public and private spaces.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the Western District of California, focuses on the encampment erected on the University of California, Los Angeles, campus in April 2024 as pro-Palestinian protests erupted across U.S. universities against Israel’s war in Gaza as students sought to pressure their schools to divest from Israel.

Federal prosecutors allege the school failed to protect its Jewish and Israeli students through its inaction concerning the encampment, which was erected April 25, 2024, and torn down May 2, 2024, when the school permitted police to clear the campus of protesters.

“Universities have an obligation to maintain safe and inclusive campuses for all students,” First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli of the Central District of California said in a statement.

“Universities that violate our nation’s civil rights laws by repeatedly failing to shield Jewish students from antisemitism will be held accountable.”

The lawsuit is similar to the one federal prosecutors filed against UCLA in February, accusing the institution of creating a hostile work environment for Israeli and Jewish faculty and staff over its inaction with regard to the encampment.

UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk on Tuesday rejected the accusations.

“Let me be direct: The suggestion that UCLA has been passive in the face of antisemitism is simply wrong. Combating antisemitism is a moral imperative — one rooted, for me, in personal history that makes indifference unthinkable,” he said in a statement.

Frenk highlighted a series of actions the school has taken over the past year, from recruiting an associate vice chancellor for campus and community safety to reorganizing its civil rights office, as proof of the school’s commitment to stand against antisemitism.

The Justice Department is seeking a court declaration that UCLA unlawfully discriminated against Jewish and Israeli students, an order forcing it to institute a series of changes and a declaration that the federal government does not need to make additional grant payments to the university.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department announced the results of an investigation into UCLA’s medical school admissions process, saying it discriminated by race to favor Black and Hispanic applicants.

Critics have accused the Trump administration of using the Justice Department to crack down on disfavored speech and ideology.

In April 2025, more than 200 college and university leaders issued a joint statement condemning the actions of the Trump administration targeting higher education institutions as “unprecedented government overreach and political interference.”

SAVANNAH, Ga. — An advocacy group has filed suit against the Trump administration over its decision to reinstate a near-ban on abortions for veterans and their family members who depend on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for healthcare.

The federal lawsuit filed Thursday says the rule finalized by the VA on Dec. 31 takes away limited abortion access that was “crucial for the health, autonomy, and equality of veterans and their family members.”

Attorneys for the group Minority Veterans of America want the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to throw out the rule. They say the VA adopted the change without citing medical evidence or other justifications, violating the Administrative Procedures Act that governs federal rulemaking.

The VA did not include abortion in its coverage until 2022. President Biden’s administration added it months after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and states’ abortion bans began taking effect.

Abortion access the VA provided under Biden was limited, applying only in cases when a pregnant woman’s life or health was at risk, or in cases of rape or incest.

The Biden change allowed the VA to provide abortion even in states where it was banned. And it brought the VA’s coverage into line with other federal healthcare plans — including Medicaid and TriCare coverage for active military members and their families — that allowed limited abortion access.

The VA announced its proposal to undo those changes last August, a few months after President Trump returned to the White House.

The VA had said it will still provide abortions in cases where a pregnant woman’s life is threatened. That’s something state laws allow, even in places where bans are in place.

However, the VA no longer allows exceptions for abortions in cases of rape, incest or to protect a pregnant woman’s health. Abortion counseling is also no longer allowed.

A VA spokesperson declined to comment, noting the agency typically doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

Minority Veterans of America says it represents more than 3,600 members across the U.S.

“Our community includes veterans with complex medical histories, those who have experienced pregnancy complications, and survivors of sexual violence and trauma, all of whom need access to abortion care and counseling to protect their health,” Lindsay Church, the group’s executive director, said in a statement.

In publishing its final rule in December, the VA said it was restoring the agency’s longstanding position that abortions were not “needed” under federal law and that “this determination did not prohibit providing life-saving care to pregnant veterans.”

The lawsuit says one of Minority Veteran of America’s members is a military veteran who just learned she was pregnant in early May. She suffers from chronic pain that has been exacerbated by the pregnancy, placing her health “at substantial risk,” says the lawsuit, which withheld the woman’s name to protect her privacy.

The lawsuit says the VA won’t allow the unnamed veteran to receive an abortion “even if her health is at risk, unless a provider determines an abortion is necessary to save her life.”

Bynum writes for the Associated Press.

Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby has sued the NCAA in an attempt to be allowed to practice and play with the Red Raiders in 2026, his final season of college eligibility.

Late last month, Sorsby and the Red Raiders announced that the fifth-year player had entered a residential treatment program for gambling addiction and would be away from the team for an indefinite period of time.

A lawsuit filed Monday in Texas’ Lubbock County District Court requests that Sorsby be declared eligible for all team activities because the NCAA “failed to comply with its contractual commitments” to him as a student-athlete and therefore “is precluded from enforcing its gambling bylaws against Mr. Sorsby to deny or withhold his reinstatement.”

The filing also asks for “temporary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the NCAA from interfering with his ability to practice, play, and participate fully as a member of the Texas Tech football team for the 2026 season.”

If he remains ineligible for college football, Sorsby intends to declare for this summer’s NFL supplemental draft. Athletes who enter that draft forfeit all remaining college eligibility.

“The relief is narrow: one student-athlete and one senior season,” the filing states. “The NCAA will suffer no cognizable harm from letting Mr. Sorsby play football while this case proceeds. But if this Court does not act, no future judgment can give Mr. Sorsby what the NCAA will have taken from him.”

As a freshman at Indiana and a low-ranked quarterback on the Hoosiers’ depth chart, the lawsuit states, Sorsby “placed small bets — typically between $5 and $50 — on the Indiana football team to win or for teammates to exceed expectations. He was not traveling with the team, and not privy to game plans; betting was his way of feeling connected to a team he could only watch from the sidelines.”

The most recent NCAA guidelines about sports wagering state that student-athletes who bet on their own games or on other sports at their school could “potentially face permanent loss of collegiate eligibility.”

Sorsby stopped betting on Indiana football once he became the backup quarterback, according to the filing, and since then hasn’t bet on any of his teams (he transferred to Cincinnati in 2024 and to Texas Tech this offseason). However, the lawsuit states, “his gambling escalated into a compulsion he could not control.”

According to the filing, Sorsby and Texas Tech were notified by the NCAA in mid-April that it had opened an investigation into the quarterback’s gambling.

“Mr. Sorsby did not deny, deflect, or delay in response,” the lawsuit states. “He immediately admitted to Texas Tech that he had placed bets in violation of NCAA rules, but he also emphasized that he never bet on a game he played in and never took any action to influence the outcome of any game because of a bet. He recognized he had a gambling addiction.

“In response, Texas Tech determined that it would declare Mr. Sorsby ineligible, as required by the Bylaws. But unlike the NCAA, Texas Tech decided to support him in seeking treatment for his addiction and to seek reinstatement of his eligibility in light of the undisputed evidence that Mr. Sorsby had not committed any integrity violation; his gambling was the product of a mental health disorder.”

The lawsuit states that Texas Tech has made multiple attempts to initiate Sorsby’s reinstatement with the NCAA. “Throughout the process, the NCAA has arbitrarily stalled at every turn,” the filing states, “despite the fact that it knows that the clock is ticking for Mr. Sorsby.”

The NCAA said in a statement to media outlets Monday that it “has not received a reinstatement request for this case.”

“The NCAA generally doesn’t comment on pending reinstatement requests, but the Association’s sports betting rules are clear, as are the reinstatement conditions,” the NCAA said. “When it comes to betting on one’s own team, these rules must be enforced in every case for the simple reason that the integrity of the game is at risk. Every sports league has these protections in place, and the NCAA will continue to apply them equally because every student-athlete competing deserves to know they’re playing a fair game.”

Texas Tech said in a statement emailed to The Times: “After finalizing an agreed-upon stipulation of facts between Texas Tech University, the NCAA and Brendan Sorsby, the University has declared Sorsby ineligible for competition. Texas Tech intends to quickly initiate the reinstatement process.

“Texas Tech’s primary focus remains supporting Sorsby’s health and well-being.”

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The bitter divorce between an Ohio congressman and his former wife, the daughter of one of the state’s U.S. senators, has escalated into new legal action.

Republican U.S. Rep. Max Miller filed a defamation lawsuit against Emily Moreno, his one-time spouse, on Wednesday in Cleveland, citing “the considerable reputational and financial harm” caused to him by her accusations that he was “a violent and abusive husband and father.”

Miller, a two-term congressman up for reelection this fall, alleges that Moreno, her attorney Andrew Zashin and his law firm have engaged in a defamatory campaign against him by spreading knowingly false information about him to media outlets including the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, and the New York Post. The action contends that the resulting damage to his reputation undermines his chances of reelection.

Those outlets have “circulation measured in the tens of millions of print and online readership,” the complaint states, and their articles have been read, viewed or discussed by Miller’s constituents, his congressional colleagues, ”his political supporters and donors, the media, and the general public.”

The suit seeks compensatory damages in excess of $25,000, punitive damages sufficient to deter future similar conduct and attorney’s fees.

“Congressman Miller is seeking to hold those responsible accountable and to obtain damages for the significant personal, professional, and political harm that he has suffered,” his spokesman said in a statement.

Zashin declined comment.

The incident brings to mind a similar situation that played out as Miller, a White House aide to President Trump during the Republican’s first term, made his first run for Congress in 2021.

Miller’s former girlfriend, one-time White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, raised allegations in her book and in a Washington Post op-ed at the time that a former White House staffer later identified as Miller had physically abused her while they were dating. Miller responded by filing a defamation lawsuit against her. He voluntarily dismissed the suit with prejudice in August 2023, just before the case was set to go to trial.

Moreno’s spokesperson, Stefan Mychajliw, cited the earlier lawsuit in a statement Thursday.

“Mr. Miller is upset because he’s tried to silence Emily Moreno the same way he silenced Stephanie Grisham — and Emily won’t let him,” he said, suggesting Miller is “running the same playbook against a woman with photographs of her bruises and burns.” He added, “Mr. Miller will not silence Ms. Moreno.”

Miller married Emily Moreno in 2022. They had a daughter in 2023.

He filed for divorce in August 2024, as her father, Bernie, was making a successful run for U.S. Senate backed by Trump. The abuse allegations — most recently, Moreno said Miller threw boiling water at her, an allegation he denies — come amid a messy custody battle that has included Miller seeking a restraining order against his ex-wife and subpoenaing the senator to testify. The divorce was finalized last June.

Miller’s spokesperson provided documentation that several allegations that he had abused his daughter were investigated by the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services and deemed unsubstantiated.

Amid the drama, Democrat Brian Poindexter, a five-term local councilman and union ironworker, is looking to oust Miller and flip Ohio’s 7th Congressional District in November.

Smyth writes for the Associated Press.

May 11 (UPI) — A nonprofit organization filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration Monday over renovating the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

The lawsuit, filed by the Cultural Landscape Foundation and founder Charles Birnbaum, argues that the National Mall renovation violates environmental and preservation laws without proper authority by changing the “historic character” of the reflecting pool.

“The dark grey, achromatic basin was not incidental to the design,” the lawsuit reads. “It was the design.”

The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction to block the renovation from moving forward.

The National Historic Preservation Act, the main law cited in the lawsuit, requires a review process before changing historic properties like the reflecting pool.

The Trump administration plans to add a coat of “American flag blue” paint to the base of the reflecting pool.

“The [Interior] Department is proud of the work being carried out by our Park Service to ensure this magical spot can be enjoyed for not only our 250th, but for many generations to come,” the Interior Department said in a statement.

The Cultural Landscape Foundation called the project and other renovations led by President Donald Trump, such as the demolition of the East Wing of the White House to build a ballroom, a “desecration.”

“A blue-tinted basin is more appropriate to a resort or theme park,” Birnbaum said in a statement.

Trump announced the project last month with an estimate for it to be completed by July 4.

POP star Dua Lipa is suing Samsung for £11million after the tech giant allegedly used her face to sell £300 televisions without her permission.

A picture of the Levitating singer was on the packaging of Crystal 43in ultra-high- definition sets to promote its XITE Hits music channel.

In legal paperwork obtained by The Sun, Dua’s attorneys say she owns the copyright to the photo — taken backstage at a 2024 festival.

She claims it appeared on a “significant portion” of the tellies sold in the US — and her fans even flocked to buy them in the belief she had endorsed them.

The filing, made in the Central District of California Federal Court, reveals that Grammy- winner Dua is demanding a minimum $15million (£11million) in damages — but a jury could decide to award far more.

South Korean firm Samsung is said to have ignored several legal warnings from her team.

DOUBLE TAKE

Why Callum Turner hid Dua Lipa lookalike ex he was WITH the night he met star

LIPA SERVICE

How Dua Lipa is bizarrely key to Fury vs Joshua fighting at Wembley

Her lawyer Christine Lepera wrote: “Samsung used a copyrighted image of Ms. Lipa without authority or licence and prominently featured it on the front of boxes containing Samsung-manufactured televisions for retail sale.”

She added “The substantial revenue made on the sale is inextricably tied to the false message conveyed to consumers that Ms. Lipa has endorsed the Infringing Products when she has not.”

One fan is said to have put a photo of the box online with the caption: “I wasn’t even planning on buying a TV, but I saw the box so I decided to get it.”

Another in Miami who spotted it in a store wrote on Instagram: “I’d get that TV just because Dua is on it. That’s how obsessed I am.”

A third said: “I’ve always said if you need anything selling, just put a picture of Dua Lipa on it.”

Ms Lepera added that Dua would not have agreed a Samsung deal anyway as she is “highly selective in her commercial partnerships”.

The London-born star, 30, is one of the world’s biggest pop stars, cracking America and winning three Grammy Awards.

She has signed a number of advertising deals to take her net worth in excess of £100million.

Dua is the face of Nespresso, alongside George Clooney, and also the frontwoman for Yves Saint-Laurent’s beauty products.

In 2023, she signed a seven- figure package to become the face of sports car brand Porsche, and she is in a multi-year partnership with sportswear giant Puma.

Samsung had yet to file a defence to the court. Both Samsung and Dua Lipa’s legal firm, MSK, were asked to comment.