sues

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.”