suit

The life of a showgirl wouldn’t be complete without a few lawsuits, and who knows that better than Taylor Swift and Elizabeth Taylor?

On Monday, the “Bad Blood” singer was hit with a trademark infringement lawsuit regarding her most recent album, “The Life of a Showgirl.” Real-life Las Vegas showgirl and writer Maren Wade, born Maren Flagg, alleges that Swift knowingly disregarded her claim to a similar name.

According to the lawsuit, Wade launched the column “Confessions of a Showgirl” in the Las Vegas Weekly in 2014. The column eventually became a live show, which became a touring production. “Over the course of a decade, Confessions of a Showgirl grew into a brand encompassing performances, writing, and digital media — built by one person, city by city and show by show,” reads the lawsuit, which adds that Wade took the show across the country, and used the brand when appearing on television and podcasts.

Wade as a performer herself respects Swift’s right to creative expression, according to the suit, “and nothing in this action challenges it.” The filing argues that “whatever [legal] protection might attach to creative expression, it does not immunize Swift’s separate decision to adopt a confusingly similar designation as a trademark, affix it to goods, and deploy it as a source identifier in commerce.”

In 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office registered “Confessions of a Showgirl” and named Maren Flagg as the owner. And according to the suit, in November 2025, the office refused an attempt by Swift’s team to register “The Life of a Showgirl” based on a likelihood of confusion with Wade’s established brand.

Patent attorney JD Harriman told The Times in a statement that although the trademark office did reject Swift’s mark, she voluntarily suspended the “Life of a Showgirl” application while a separate trademark application for “Showgirl” moved forward.

“This case isn’t about the music, and it may not even be about confusion,” Harriman said. “Wade’s own complaint concedes she’s not challenging the album itself — only merchandise. And before filing, she was publicly hashtagging Swift’s album and calling herself a fan.”

Jaymie Parkkinen, an attorney for Wade, told The Times in an emailed statement that Maren spent more than a decade building Confessions of a Showgirl.

“She registered it. She earned it. When Taylor Swift’s team applied to register The Life of a Showgirl, the Trademark Office refused, finding Swift’s mark confusingly similar,” Parkkinen said. “We have great respect for Swift’s talent and success, but trademark law exists to ensure that creators at all levels can protect what they’ve built. That’s what this case is about.”

Wade’s team argues that since Swift’s 12th album dropped last year, search results are dominated by Swift, and even though Wade established her own showgirl brand a decade ago, her brand is now seen as affiliated with Swift’s.

“The Life of a Showgirl is one designation among more than 170 active or pending trademark registrations managed by Defendant TAS on behalf of Swift, spanning names, phrases, and commercial designations across one of the most extensive trademark portfolios in the entertainment industry,” reads the suit.

Swift’s broader enterprise “does not depend on the continued use of any single designation,” the suit continues. “By contrast, Confessions of a Showgirl is the sole trademark under which [Wade] has built her professional identity for more than a decade. It is not one mark among hundreds. It is the only one she has. The continued erosion of that mark threatens the entirety of Wade’s brand.”

In other Swift news, the Grammy winner dropped the music video for “Elizabeth Taylor” on Tuesday.

The video features archival film clips of the latter starlet — also known for high-profile legal battles, media scrutiny aimed at her love life and larger-than-life fame — rather than the songstress herself, who does not appear in the video.

The video, which has been exclusively released via Spotify Premium and Apple Music, includes scenes from “Father of the Bride,” “Rhapsody,” “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof,” “Cleopatra,” and “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” among other classic films starring Taylor. The homage also has old press footage of the Oscar winner.

Back in October, Swift told BBC radio that if she mentions a real person in her songs, she warns them ahead of time, and in the case of someone like the late movie star, she asked the Taylor estate for permission to pay homage with the song.

“If it’s Elizabeth Taylor,” she said, “we go to their family and her estate and let them know, and they were lovely about it.”

WASHINGTON — Three fired FBI agents sued on Tuesday to try to get their jobs back, saying in a class-action lawsuit that they were illegally punished for their participation in an investigation into President Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

The federal lawsuit adds to the mounting list of court challenges to a personnel purge by FBI Director Kash Patel that over the last year has resulted in the ousters of dozens of agents, either because of their involvement in investigations related to Trump or because they were perceived as insufficiently loyal to the Republican president’s agenda.

The lawsuit in federal court in Washington was technically filed on behalf of just three agents but may have much broader implications given that its request for class-action status could open the door for agents fired since the start of the Trump administration to get their jobs back.

The three agents — Michelle Ball, Jamie Garman and Blaire Toleman — were fired last October and November in what they say was a “retribution campaign” targeting them for their work on the investigation into Trump. The agents had between eight and 14 years of “exemplary and unblemished” service in the FBI and expected to spend the remainder of their careers at the bureau but were abruptly fired without cause and without being given a chance to respond, the lawsuit says.

“Serving the American people as FBI agents was the highest honor of our lives,” they said in a statement. “We took an oath to uphold the Constitution, followed the facts wherever they led and never compromised our integrity. Our removal from federal service — without due process and based on a false perception of political bias — is a profound injustice that raises serious concerns about political interference in federal law enforcement.”

Trump’s indictment

The investigation the agents worked on culminated in a 2023 indictment from special counsel Jack Smith that accused Trump of illegally scheming to undo the results of the presidential election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. Smith ultimately abandoned that case, along with a separate one accusing Trump of illegally retaining classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., after Trump won back the White House in 2024, citing Justice Department legal opinions that prohibit the federal indictments of sitting presidents.

The lawsuit notes that the firings followed the release by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of documents about the election investigation — known as Arctic Frost — that he said had come from within the FBI. Those records included files showing that Smith’s team had subpoenaed several days of phone records of some Republican lawmakers, an investigative step that angered Trump allies inside Congress.

The complaint names as defendants Patel and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, accusing them of having orchestrated the firings despite being “personally embroiled” either as witnesses or attorneys in some of the legal troubles Trump has faced.

Patel, for instance, was subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury investigating Trump’s retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and had his phone records subpoenaed, while Bondi was part of the legal team that represented Trump at his first impeachment trial, which resulted in his acquittal.

“And now, by virtue of presidential appointment to the pinnacle of federal law enforcement, Defendants are abusing their positions to claim victories that eluded them on the merits,” the lawsuit states.

Spokespeople for the FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment on the ongoing litigation. Patel and Bondi have said the fired agents and prosecutors who worked on Smith’s team were responsible for weaponizing federal law enforcement, a claim that was also asserted in their termination letters but that the plaintiffs call defamatory and baseless.

Fired agents call for ‘fundamental constitutional protections’

Dan Eisenberg, a lawyer for the agents, said in a statement that his clients were fired without any investigation, notice of charges or chance to be heard.

“This lawsuit seeks to reaffirm fundamental constitutional protections for FBI employees, ensuring they can perform their duties without fear or favor. We all benefit when law enforcement officers’ only loyalty is to facts and the truth,” said Eisenberg, who is with the firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel.

The lawsuit asks for the agents to be reinstated to their positions and for a court declaration affirming that their rights had been violated. It also seeks to represent a class of at least 50 agents who have been terminated since Jan. 20, 2025, or will be. Those agents also stand to recover their jobs in the event the case is successful and the requested class-action status is granted.

Others have been fired too

Other fired employees who have sued include agents who were photographed kneeling during a racial justice protest in 2020; an agent trainee who displayed an LGBTQ+ flag at his workspace; and a group of senior officials, including the former acting director of the FBI, who were terminated last summer.

The firings have continued, with Patel last month pushing out a group of agents in the Washington field office who had been involved in investigating Trump’s hoarding of classified documents. Trump has insisted he was entitled to keep the documents when he left the White House and has claimed without evidence that he had declassified them.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

A U.S. District Court judge dismissed a wrongful termination suit filed by a Fox News producer who claimed he was fired in retaliation for calling out the network’s reporting on President Trump’s erroneous charges of 2020 election fraud and the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Jason Donner, who worked at the network’s Washington bureau as a reporter and producer was fired on Sept. 28, 2022, two days after calling in sick. He was told he had been terminated for his absence.

In 2023, Donner filed a lawsuit in a Washington, D.C., court that contended his dismissal was linked to several instances in which he challenged the veracity of the network’s coverage.

But U.S. District Judge Amir Ali determined in his ruling issued Monday that Donner failed to meet the company rules and that his conduct was not protected by the District of Columbia’s sick leave law.

Donner’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit noted that Fox News bosses criticized the network’s journalists for not considering the feelings of its pro-Trump audience following the election that sent Joe Biden to the White House.

Those comments are supported by the depositions and evidence collected for the Dominion Voting Systems defamation suit against Fox News, which was settled in April for $787.5 million.

But Ali also said Donner was an at-will employee and that his case failed to identify “a public policy that precluded Fox from firing him over his ardent objections to the network’s programming, no matter their validity.”

The same point was raised when U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper dismissed that portion of Donner’s claim in 2024.

“As we have maintained, this lawsuit was entirely without merit, and we are pleased with the court’s ruling on the matter,” a Fox News representative said in a statement.

Minnesota public universities can continue to offer in-state tuition and scholarships to some immigrants in the country without legal status, a federal judge ruled Friday, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department last summer that attempted to halt the programs.

The decision follows a series of clashes between the federal government and Minnesota officials over immigration enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez said in her decision that the federal government failed to prove that programs offering in-state tuition for immigrants without legal status discriminated against U.S. citizens.

The federal lawsuit named Democratic Gov. Tim Walz and Democratic state Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison as defendants, along with the state’s Office of Higher Education. It said Minnesota law discriminates against U.S. citizens because it provides in-state tuition and scholarships to students living in the U.S. illegally if they attended a Minnesota high school for three years, and U.S. citizens who attended schools outside of the state cannot receive the same benefits. States generally set higher tuition rates for out-of-state students.

The federal government said those state statutes “flagrantly” violate a federal law that prevents states from providing preferential benefits to immigrants in the U.S. illegally regardless of whether or not they meet residency requirements.

“No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement after the lawsuit was filed last year.

Menendez said the Justice Department misinterpreted the law, enacted during the Clinton administration, because anyone who attended a Minnesota high school for at least three years are granted the same public benefits, regardless of their U.S. residency or immigration status.

She also said the federal government didn’t have standing to sue the state attorney general or governor since neither has the power to change the state laws that determine tuition eligibility.

Ellison celebrated the decision in a statement Friday.

“Today, we defeated another one of Donald Trump’s efforts to misconstrue federal law to force Minnesota to abandon duly passed state laws and become a colder, less caring state,” he wrote.

The funding for immigrants without legal status represents an “investment for our state to do everything we can to encourage a more educated workforce,” Ellison wrote.

The U.S. Justice Department didn’t respond to an email request for comment Friday.

The department has filed similar lawsuits this month against policies in Kentucky and Texas. Last week, a federal judge in Texas blocked that state’s law giving a tuition break to students living in the U.S. illegally after the state’s Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, said he supported the legal challenge.

In discussing the Texas case last year, Bondi suggested more lawsuits might be coming.

Florida ended in-state tuition eligibility for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. At least 22 states and the District of Columbia have laws or policies granting the in-state benefit, according to the National Immigration Law Center. Those states include Democratic-led California and New York, but also Republican states including Kansas and Nebraska.

According to the center, at least 13 states in addition to Minnesota allow immigrant students without legal status to receive financial aid and scholarships on top of in-state tuition.

Riddle writes for the Associated Press.

March 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Justice Department sued Harvard University on Friday, accusing the Ivy League school of failing to protect Jewish students in the wake of the war in Israel and Gaza.

Filed in Boston, the lawsuit said Harvard allowed a “hostile education environment” for Jewish students who were physically assaulted and harassed. Protests sparked at Harvard and other U.S. college campuses after the start of the Oct. 7, 2023, war.

“The United States cannot and will not tolerate these failures and brings this action to compel Harvard to comply with Title VI, and to recover billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies to a discriminatory institution,” the lawsuit read, referencing a federal law banning discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs receiving federal funds.

Harvard denied the allegations laid out in the lawsuit, saying it has taken steps to embrace and respect Jewish and Israeli students on campus.

“Harvard has taken substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of anti-Semitism and actively enforces anti-harassment and anti-discrimination rules and policies on campus,” a statement from the school said.

“We also have enhanced training and education on anti-Semitism for students, faculty and staff, and launched programs to promote civil dialogue and respectful disagreement inside and outside the classroom.

“Harvard’s efforts demonstrate the very opposite of deliberate indifference.”

The administration has actively targeted Harvard since President Donald Trump took office in 2025. Trump’s official grievance against the university is that he claims the school failed to protect Jewish students during protests against Israel during the war that began in 2023.

In February, the Justice Department sued Harvard for failing to hand over admissions documents for an investigation about whether the admission process discriminates against white people. Earlier in February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that the Pentagon would end its academic partnership with Harvard over what he called a “woke” institution that is not welcoming to the U.S. military.

On Feb. 3, Trump said he was now seeking $1 billion in damages from Harvard but didn’t explain why.

“We are now seeking One Billion Dollars in damages, and want nothing further to do, into the future, with Harvard University,” Trump said on Truth Social.

On Dec. 19, the administration filed an appeal against a judge who blocked his order to cut funding by $2 billion.

A group of attorneys general are taking legal action to block Nexstar Media Group’s proposed $6.2-billion acquisition of Tegna’s TV stations, calling the deal bad for consumer cable bills and local journalism.

A lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Sacramento says the proposed deal by eight state law enforcers, including California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, claims the proposed deal will give Nexstar too much control of local TV stations, ultimately hurting consumers by diminishing the diversity of news sources in their markets.

Bonta said in a statement that the deal will cause “irreparable harm to local news and consumers who rely on their reporting as a critical source of information.” The plaintiffs also include state attorneys general in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia.

The Irving, Texas-based Nexstar is currently the largest station owner in the U.S., with 164 outlets including KTLA in Los Angeles. If the merger with Tegna succeeds, Nexstar would have 265 TV stations reaching 80% of the U.S. and multiple outlets in a number of markets.

The suit also claims that the merger would give Nexstar too much leverage in negotiating fees from pay-TV providers that carry their stations. Higher fees paid to Nexstar would be passed along to consumers in their cable and satellite bills, the lawsuit asserts.

Most of Nexstar’s stations are affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox, all of which carry NFL football, the highest-rated programming on TV by a wide margin. Disputes over carriage fees between station owners and pay-TV providers often result in blackouts and service interruptions to consumers.

DirecTV, which serves around 11 million pay-TV subscribers in the U.S., filed a similar lawsuit in the same court on Thursday, claiming the Nexstar deal will “irreparably drive up consumer costs, reduce local competition, shutter local newsrooms, and increase both the frequency and duration of blackouts of key local teams and network programming.”

A Nexstar representative did not respond to a request to comment.

President Trump has said he favors Nexstar’s proposed deal. But every major TV station owner believes consolidation in the TV station business is necessary to thrive going forward as they battle to compete with streaming video platforms that have eaten away at their audience share.

The companies say they are at a disadvantage in competing with tech companies by being limited to owning stations in 39% of the U.S., a cap that was set in 2003.

Nexstar recently cut veteran anchors and on-air reporters from its stations in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York. Further reductions in local TV newsrooms would occur if Nexstar succeeds in acquiring Tegna, which would likely mean consolidation of local newsrooms in which it owns more than one station.

Like with WSL clubs, most US teams share another franchise’s premises, be it a men’s team’s ground or a venue usually reserved for other sports, such as NFL stadium Lumen Field for Seattle Reign.

Kansas City buck this trend, and Denver Summit president Jen Millet believes it makes financial sense to follow suit.

“A big part of a sustainable business model is controlling revenue streams,” Millet says. “Women have been tenants and missed out on those things – food, beverage, parking, rentals, retail.

“It’s massively important to operate your own stadium.”

Having their own venue has also enhanced KC Current’s marketing strategy – something Kirsten Ross, president of official supporters’ club The Blue Crew, says has greatly raised the team’s profile.

“[The club] do a really good job of ramping up when the team is playing,” she says.

“Previously, people had no idea FC Kansas City existed. Now you can’t walk anywhere without knowing there’s a game for KC Current.”

Chris Long argues a bespoke stadium brings the best out of players – after all, Kansas City dominated the 2025 regular season and won the NWSL Shield by 21 points, even if they lost in the play-offs.

“It’s the feeling of belonging,” he says. “If you’re a tenant, the schedule isn’t based on you… you put your stuff in the locker room but have to take it out because it’s temporary.”

Jemison adds: “You feel like a visitor in your own home. We didn’t want that.”

A Christian engineer with L.A. County claims his bosses discriminated against him by forcing him to pass by a Pride flag on the way to his office, the latest legal challenge to the government’s policy of requiring many government buildings display the flag throughout June.

Eric Batman, a 24-year veteran of the Department of Public Works, sued the county March 10 for refusing to let him work remotely in June, when the rainbow-striped flag hangs in front of his department’s Alhambra headquarters.

It’s the second lawsuit to target the county’s 2023 policy ordering the raising of the “Progress Pride Flag,” a modified version of the traditional rainbow flag with additional stripes representing people of color and transgender and nonbinary people.

In May 2024, Jeffrey Little, an evangelical Christian county lifeguard, sued the county for requiring he work feet away from the flag. That case, filed by conservative Catholic legal group Thomas More Society, is ongoing.

Batman said he first asked to work remotely for the month of June in 2024 to avoid the flag, which he found “highly offensive,” according to the suit.

A supervisor rejected his request, according to the filing, noting the county was “committed to fostering an inclusive workplace, including for our LGBTQ+ employees.” The supervisor suggested he use another entrance, Batman’s suit claimed.

“They wouldn’t give it to him because the county said ‘Our interest is in inclusivity — regardless of whether or not that includes you,”’ said Daniel Schmid, an attorney with Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group representing Batman.

Liberty Counsel frequently takes on high-profile plaintiffs who oppose same-sex marriage, including the case of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

A spokesperson for the county’s public works department said she could not comment on the suit as it had not yet been served.