suit

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Thursday broadly upheld lawsuits by U.S. companies whose property was seized in Cuba prior to 1960, including claims against cruise ship lines that docked there in the past decade.

These suits do not seek compensation from Cubans but from those who “traffic in property which was confiscated by the Cuban government.”

In a 8-1 decision, the justices revived a $400-million judgment against four cruise lines whose ships stopped in Havana between 2016 and 2019.

All of them used docks that were built early in the 20th century by the Havana Docks Corporation, an American company.

Justice Clarence Thomas pointed to a rarely enforced 1996 law that authorized suits against those who “use property tainted by a past confiscation.”

Past presidents had suspended enforcement of the law, but President Trump allowed such claims to go forward.

That change in policy exposed “traffickers in confiscated property of United States nationals” to brings claims in federal courts, Thomas said.

The four cruise line companies — Caribbean Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Carnival Corporation, and MSC Cruises — transported nearly a million paid passengers to Cuba, he wrote.

They paid the Cuban government tens of millions of dollars to do business in Cuba. They collectively earned hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from voyages that included a stop in Havana, he said.

A federal judge in Florida ordered each of the cruise lines to pay $100 million in damages, but the U.S. appeals court in Atlanta blocked the decision by a 2-1 vote. It said Havana Docks Corporation had a contract to run the docks had expired in 2004.

Justice Elena Kagan made the same argument in dissent.

She said “the docks belonged to the Cuban Government — not Havana Docks — all along. What Havana Docks owned was only a property interest allowing it to use those docks for a specified time. And that time-limited interest expired in 2004 — more than a decade before the cruise lines ever used the docks.”

Still pending before the court is a similar claim from Exxon Mobil Corp., which was argued on the day in late February.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday moved to withdraw his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns after reports that his administration was poised to create a fund to compensate some of his allies.

The disclosure was made in a filing in federal court in Florida, where the lawsuit was filed last year.

ABC News first reported last week that Trump was prepared to drop his lawsuit as part of a deal that would create a $1.7 billion fund to pay allies of the president who believe they were wrongly investigated and prosecuted.

The court filing did not mention terms of any potential deal.

News that the Trump administration was contemplating a fund to pay Trump allies drew an immediate backlash from Democrats, including Rep. Jamie Raskin, who called the idea “unconstitutional.”

“This, of course, is a political grievance fund that Donald Trump can use to pay off his friends,” Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“If these people have a valid cause of action, they should bring it to the court like every other American does, and use the system of due process, and proving things by clear and convincing evidence, or a preponderance of evidence, go and prove it. But the idea that Donald Trump can just pass it out like a pardon is absurd,” he added.

It was not immediately clear who precisely will stand to benefit from the fund but its creation reflects Trump’s long-running claims that the Biden administration Justice Department was weaponized against him.

He has cited as proof the since-dismissed criminal charges he faced between his first and second terms of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election he lost and of retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Several aides of his were also prosecuted, as were hundreds of Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Merrick Garland, who served as attorney general during the Biden administration, has repeatedly denied allegations of politicization and has said his decisions followed facts, the evidence and the law. His Justice Department also investigated Biden for his handling of classified information and brought separate tax and gun prosecutions against Biden’s son Hunter.

Nonetheless, Trump’s current Justice Department has actively pursued the president’s retribution campaign and grievances, bringing criminal charges against some of his perceived adversaries and initiating a wide-ranging investigation that aims to establish a years-long conspiracy between law enforcement and intelligence officials to destroy Trump’s political prospects and keep him power.

No charges have been brought in that investigation and it is not clear that any ever will be.

Trump filed a lawsuit earlier this year in a Florida federal court, alleging that a previous leak of his and the Trump Organization’s confidential tax records caused “reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”

The president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, are also named plaintiffs in the suit.

Hussein, Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

Kylie Jenner is being sued by a second housekeeper who alleges she suffered cruel and unusual treatment while working for the beauty mogul.

Just a week after one woman on Jenner’s cleaning staff sued her, claiming her co-workers harassed and discriminated against her, another housekeeper has come out with allegations. The woman says the “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” star didn’t intervene while she suffered abuse from fellow staff, despite the housekeeper slipping the reality star a letter pleading for help.

Juana Delgado Soto filed a lawsuit against Kylie Jenner, Kylie Jenner Inc., staff supervisor Itzel Sibrian, Tri Star Services and La Maison Family Services on Wednesday alleging racial discrimination, harassment, failure to pay wages, failure to prevent or remedy harassment and discrimination, and more.

A representative for Jenner declined to comment Thursday, noting that the reality star had not yet seen the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, obtained by The Times, Soto began working for Jenner in May 2019. She alleges that meal and rest breaks were withheld from her for the first few years of her employment, but that the severity of the abuse and harassment ramped up in late 2023, when Sibrian became her direct supervisor. Soto says that, in 2024, she filed a complaint with Human Resources after Sibrian allegedly mocked and humiliated her for her accent, immigration status and race and called her stupid. Sibrian was temporarily removed because of the complaint and then reinstated, and according to the suit, she set out to retaliate against Soto for filing a complaint by reducing her hourly wage, assigning unreasonable workloads and changing her schedule.

In her lawsuit, Soto says that, as she prepared to leave work on her birthday, Sibrian threatened that she would be fired if she didn’t stay late and told her “no one cares about your birthday, Kylie is having a dinner.” Soto says she missed her own surprise party.

In late 2024, housekeeping supervisors Patsy and Elsy, who are referred to in the first lawsuit against Jenner as well, by their first names only, stepped into their leadership roles. Soto alleges that under Patsy and Elsy, she was denied adequate time off to grieve after the sudden death of her brother, and was told to “report to work immediately.” While she was working, she alleges, staff members “whispered that [Soto] was lying about her brother’s death and kept forcing her to pick up trash they purposely threw on the ground.” She further claims she was harassed when she requested time off to attend her brother’s funeral Mass.

In April 2025, the suit alleges that, after repeated failures by management to address Soto’s concerns, she wrote a long letter to Jenner detailing the harassment, discrimination and retaliation and placed it on Jenner’s massage bed immediately before her massage.

According to the suit, Soto wrote, “I need to express just how terribly I am mentally abused” and “I really apologize for letting you know about all these situations, I know you wouldn’t allow this to happen, if you were aware of it.”

Soto alleges that the following day she was threatened with termination and instructed never to contact Jenner again. “Defendants told her she was no longer allowed to look at Kylie, smile at Kylie and if she saw Kylie she would have to ‘disappear.’”

Soto further alleges that, after she left the letter for Jenner, her supervisors required her to leave the premises when Jenner was present, restricted her restroom access, forced her to clean the doghouse and prohibited her from drinking water at the residence, calling it “Kylie’s water.”

In August 2025, Soto sent a text message to her supervisors, writing, “I am sorry, I cannot do this anymore, every day you guys mistreat me, and I have bitten all my nails off, I cannot sleep at nights, and I always have anxiety because of the way you guys treat me. No matter what I did no one helped me.”

Soto is seeking an unspecified amount of punitive and compensatory damages.

“My client alleges multiple employment & labor law violations by Kylie Jenner and her affiliated companies, and I commend her for the courage to come forward and seek accountability, recognizing that taking the first step is often the most difficult,” Soto’s attorney Della Shaker told The Times. Shaker also represents Angelica Hernandez Vasquez, who filed a suit against Jenner on April 17.

Vasquez’s lawsuit says she was subjected to “severe and pervasive harassment” while employed by the makeup magnate from September 2024 to August 2025.

Vasquez, who states that she is a Salvadoran woman and practicing Catholic, alleges she was humiliated by fellow staff members and belittled because of her race, country of origin, religion and immigration status. Jenner was not personally accused of bullying behavior in the filing brought by Vasquez.

April 26 (UPI) — The Trump administration asked the National Trust for Historic Preservation on Sunday to end its legal challenge to President Donald Trump‘s ballroom following Saturday’s arrest at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, saying its lawsuit “puts the lives of the president, his family and staff at grave risk.”

“Enough is enough. Your client should voluntarily dismiss this frivolous lawsuit today in light of last night’s assassination attempt on President Trump,” Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division said in a letter to the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s lawyers.

Cole Tomas Allen, 31, of Torrance, Calif., was arrested Saturday night at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner hosted at the Washington Hilton Hotel with Trump, his family, members of his Cabinet and many others in attendance.

U.S. Secret Service agents apprehended the suspect — armed with a shotgun, a handgun and knives — who allegedly rushed a Secret Service checkpoint in the hotel’s lobby, authorities said.

Law enforcement and the suspect exchanged gunfire, resulting in an agent sustaining an injury when shot in the bullet-resistant vest. The injured agent and the suspect, who was not struck by gunfire, were transported to a local hospital for treatment.

Trump has been locked in a monthslong legal battle with the preservation organization over his plans to construct a $400 million donor-paid ballroom where the East Wing of the White House once stood.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation argues that the Trump administration needs congressional approval for the project and its financing mechanism, while the Justice Department argues the project is legally authorized and that, now that construction has begun, completing it is necessary for the security and the safety of the president.

A federal judge has sided with the preservation organization, ruling that Trump needs congressional approval for the plan to proceed. After the judge earlier this month permitted only below-ground construction for security purposes, the D.C. Circuit issued an administrative stay allowing the project to continue while the government’s appeal proceeds, with oral arguments scheduled for June 5.

Calls of support from the White House and Republicans have increased following Saturday’s incident, with Trump stating in a press conference that night, “We need the ballroom.”

In his letter on Sunday, Shumate said the ballroom would mean the president would no longer need to leave the White House to attend large gatherings.

He said the National Trust for Historic Preservation has until 9 a.m. Monday to dismiss the lawsuit or the Justice Department will move to dismiss the case “in light of last night’s extraordinary events” and state that the preservation organization opposes the motion.

UPI has asked the National Trust for Historic Preservation for comment.