suit

Anyone wondering what look fashion-forward tennis star Naomi Osaka would sport at the U.S. Open this year received “The Answer” on Monday night at Flushing Meadows in New York.

That is, her look was very much inspired by basketball icon Allen Iverson, complete with cornrows, a headband and arm sleeves.

After her 7-6 (6), 7-6 (3) first-round victory over Anastasia Zakharova, Osaka said she decided to pay homage to the Naismith Basketball Hall of Famer and his signature style after her apparel sponsor chose basketball as its U.S. Open theme.

“It’s my, I guess, my tribute to Iverson. I really like him a lot,” Osaka said during an on-court interview. “I mean, Nike said basketball, so I said, ‘OK, you want basketball, I’ll give you basketball.’”

Osaka took the court wearing a long, hooded gown — possibly inspired by Iverson’s hoodies and baggy clothes from back in the day — with newspaper clippings about her attached to it. She first took off the hood to reveal her hair and headband, then removed the gown to play in a black tank top and metallic tennis skirt.

Naomi Osaka arrives to compete against Anastasia Zakharova during the first round of the U.S. Open on Monday in New York.

(Adam Hunger / Ap Photo/adam Hunger)

Naomi Osaka reacts to winning the first set against Anastasia Zakharova on Monday at the U.S. Open.

(Adam Hunger / Associated Press)

The two-time U.S. Open champion also gave a nod to the 11-time NBA All-Star during her media day news conference Saturday by wearing a T-shirt that featured the longtime Philadelphia 76ers star’s 1999 Slam magazine cover.

“For me, he’s a trailblazer,” Osaka said when asked about the shirt. “He’s also someone that I look up to a lot, because he’s done a lot in fashion, whether it’s on purpose or not, but he’s shifted the way that NBA players dress. And I also think the whole conversation around clothes in sports, and also just expressing yourself through style, I feel like he’s someone that I look up to in that regard.”

Philadelphia 76ers’ Allen Iverson plays against the Boston Celtics pn March 8, 2006.

(Winslow Townson / Associated Press)

With his hair, tattoos, jewelry and clothes, Iverson gained his reputation as an NBA fashion trailblazer during his playing career from 1996-2010 — so much so that in 2005, when then-commissioner David Stern instituted a stricter dress code for players arriving to games, many felt it was in response to Iverson’s look.

“I took the ass whooping for it, but the dress code thing I actually was just — I was 21,” Iverson said on “The Breakfast Club” last year. “Where am I going after the game? I’m going to the club. Before that, they were used to dudes wearing suits, and I was like, damn. I’ve never worn a suit growing up — going to church or to a funeral was the only time I put on a suit … and the courtroom. I never wore a suit to the gym to play, to the park.”

On Saturday, Osaka said she had never communicated with Iverson — “but hopefully he’ll see this,” she added.

Turns out, he did. Iverson posted a photo of Osaka in the shirt featuring his image and a clip of her comments about him Monday on Instagram.

“Wow, what a honor!!” Iverson wrote. “BIG FAN can’t wait to meet you. @naomiosaka”

ABBY Lee Miller showed off her incredible figure in a black swimsuit as she enjoyed a trip away this week.

The Dance Moms star, 60, was soaking up the sun in Long Island, New York, and took to Instagram to share snaps from the trip with her fans.

Staying at the four-star Hotel Indigo, Abby beamed for the camera as she took a dip in the pool in a black one-piece swimsuit.

She matched the swimwear with statement gold jewellery and had her brunette tresses styled into a bouncy blowdry.

Sipping on a mocktail, Abby posed for several poolside shots.

She later added a butter yellow beach coverup over her bathing suit while relaxing by the pool.

SHO OFF

Shona McGarty stuns in a polka dot thong bikini before taking daring bridge leap

BALLROOM BRAWL

Shirley Ballas takes swipe at AJ Pritchard amid his feud with DWTS pro

Abby captioned her post: “Couldn’t have asked for a better spot to stay while I was on Long Island this summer! 🌊☀️

“@indigoeastend was not only beautiful, but the perfect place to relax and enjoy all the amenities, from the pool to their fabulous restaurant, @bistro72, with a gorgeous sunset view! Top of the pyramid👏🏼👏🏼“.

Abby has been using a wheelchair since 2018, when she underwent spinal surgery and battled Burkitt lymphoma – a rare form of cancer.

Before her health woes, the TV star and dance instructor dropped from a size 24 to a size 16 and has been looking incredible over recent years since becoming cancer-free in 2019.

Abby rose to fame in 2011 when Dance Moms hit screens as the strict dance coach and leading personality of the show.

The series, which launched the careers of stars such as JoJo Siwa, was centred around the young girls who were members of the Abby Lee Dance Company and their mothers, who were also in competition with each other.

As political pressure builds to resolve the standoff between California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison over his company’s proposed Warner Bros. merger, the two sides are set to face off in a court-ordered mediation session this week.

It’s not clear whether Monday’s meeting will lead to an immediate breakthrough because the parties remain far apart on business concessions that Bonta has said are necessary to settle the antitrust lawsuit that has stalled Ellison’s proposed $111-billion takeover.

In addition, the fight has grown increasingly ugly after Paramount threatened to leave California. Then, on Friday, the company accused actor Mark Ruffalo — a prominent deal critic — of injecting “antisemitic tropes” into the campaign to thwart the industry-reshaping deal.

Leaders of prominent Jewish organizations, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League, quickly came to Paramount’s defense, scolding the Emmy-winning actor best known for playing the Hulk and in numerous productions for HBO, the premium channel that Paramount is hoping to buy. Ruffalo is also known for being an outspoken political progressive.

“We are, as always, troubled when antisemitic tropes are invoked,” Paramount said in a statement. “Words like ‘genocide’ and ‘apartheid,’ applied to a corporate transaction, aren’t just wrong — they’re a bridge too far.”

The fracas began last week when Ruffalo highlighted support for Israel by Ellison’s father, Larry Ellison, and his software company, Oracle Corp., which has worked with the Israeli military amid the Israel-Gaza war.

Ruffalo recirculated a two-year-old video clip of Safra Catz, Oracle’s former CEO and a current Paramount board member. During an Israeli-American Council National Summit conference, she said she couldn’t discuss Oracle’s work with Israel’s military, but “we have some profoundly scary technology at Oracle and we wanted to make sure that it was available” to Israel after the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks by Hamas.

Ruffalo, in his post, described the war in Gaza as a “genocide” that “was built on an apartheid system of oppression powered by Oracle.”

In a subsequent post, Ruffalo defended his right to speak out against Oracle and the war in Gaza.

Mark Ruffalo stars in HBO’s drama “Task.”

(Peter Kramer / HBO)

“The accusation that I am antisemitic is appalling and fundamentally dishonest,” Ruffalo wrote on X. “Criticizing the actions of the Israeli prime minister, a military technology contract, or the executives who supply it is not the same as criticizing Jewish people.”

The fight intensified Sunday when Mark Goldfeder, head of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, lashed out at Bonta and suggested California’s top law enforcement official was doing Ruffalo’s bidding by filing the antitrust lawsuit.

“Your friend @MarkRuffalo said the quiet part out loud. His campaign against the Jewish Ellisons is about Israel, ‘genocide’, and ‘apartheid’,” Goldfeder wrote in a message on X directed at Bonta.

“Did you hear that too before you sued?” Goldfeder asked — a reference to a Feb. 27 message by Bonta, who at the time was responding to Ruffalo’s dismay after Paramount won the bidding war for Warner Bros., which also owns CNN.

In a nearly six-month-old post on X, Bonta wrote: “Mark, I hear you. I’m in conversation with my AG colleagues about Paramount/Warner Bros. As the epicenter of the entertainment industry, California has a special interest in protecting competition.”

Bonta and 11 other state attorney generals, all Democrats, from states including Colorado, Washington, Nevada and New York, filed the antitrust suit last month.

Paramount declined to comment on the latest developments.

Ruffalo has long been an outspoken critic of Israel’s involvement in Gaza. He’s also been a major irritant to David Ellison and other top Paramount executives as the actor took a starring role, drumming up opposition in Hollywood to Paramount’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros.

He helped lead a campaign that garnered signatures of more than 5,000 entertainment workers, including Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston and Jane Fonda, who spoke out against the merger and its potential effect on Hollywood’s creative community.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has been privately advocating for a truce, in part, to avoid seeing another pillar of industry — the Paramount film studio — leave the state. Newsom reportedly said that he took Paramount’s threat “seriously.”

Mayor Karen Bass has also pushed for a settlement, which the Writers Guild of America criticized, accusing Bass of joining “Paramount’s pressure campaign,” when jobs are at stake.

A Los Angeles County report estimated that 4,500 jobs would be lost in Los Angeles if the merger goes through.

In recent weeks, key movie theater owners have scaled back their opposition, calling for talks to find a truce.

Bonta, in several interviews, has stressed the deal is about competition and antitrust law — not politics.

Paramount would have to sell businesses, what he calls “robust structural remedies,” to make the deal work, Bonta said last week on CNBC. He views Ellison’s pledge to make 30 movies a year post-merger as insufficient and unenforceable once the transaction closes.

Paramount last week demanded that Bonta and the other states post a $1.88-billion bond if the case stretches to March, which is when the judge has scheduled the trial. Paramount must increase its payout to Warner shareholders through “ticking fees” every quarter until the deal is complete.

The mediation talks are part of the judicial process.

During the CNBC interview Bonta criticized Paramount for raising issues that he doesn’t see as central to his group’s antitrust lawsuit.

“We do prefer to resolve cases in the boardroom instead of the courtroom,” Bonta told CNBC, a response to Democratic nominee for governor Xavier Becerra, who earlier this month said he, too, would like to see a settlement.

“For now we’re bringing our case,” Bonta said. “I hope they can focus on the actual allegations we make in our complaint.”

Christian metal band Demon Hunter is suing Netflix, alleging trademark infringement associated with the streamer’s hit film “KPop Demon Hunters.”

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday by Hyde Lane, the corporate entity for Demon Hunter, against Netflix, Netflix Studios and AEG Presents, the live-entertainment division of AEG, with claims that the defendants have “created a substantial likelihood of confusion” among consumers.

The metalcore band — which was formed in 2000 out of Seattle by brothers Ryan and Don Clark — claims the success of the 2025 urban fantasy flick has “eclipse[d]” the group’s “established identity” and “commercial fate,” especially as plans for a KPop Demon Hunters global concert tour were announced in May in partnership with AEG Presents.

Hyde Lane originally trademarked “Demon Hunter” in 2014 under entertainment, namely live performances. To date, the band has released 12 studio albums and amassed more than 348,000 monthly listeners on Spotify. Several of its early music videos, including popular tracks like “Dead Flowers” and “Someone to Hate,” have garnered millions of views on YouTube.

In 2022, the company submitted other trademark protections for recorded music and merchandise.

By comparison, Netflix filed 10 applications under the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for “KPop Demon Hunters” for merchandise purposes starting in August 2025.

Hyde Lane has “been forced to surrender control over its commercial identity simply because Defendants have greater resources and a larger marketplace footprint,” the lawsuit states.

In the suit, the plaintiffs cite instances where there has been “consumer confusion.”

On Feb. 26, 2026, someone requested a refund after purchasing $500 tickets to a Demon Hunter show in Albany, N.Y., believing it was for a KPop Demon Hunters concert, according to the suit. “If I dont get it refunded I will not be able to purchase tickets to the actual ‘K pop demon hunters show,’” the email read.

On March 16, 2026, a producer from “Inside Edition” emailed Demon Hunter manager Ryan J. Downey to request an interview with songwriter Yu Han Lee (of KPop Demon Hunters) following the Oscar win for original song, the lawsuit states.

Additionally, the plaintiffs say the Christian band has been incorrectly tagged in connection to various KPop Demon Hunters content.

“Due to Defendants’ wrongful actions, Demon Hunter’s established identity is becoming increasingly obscured within recorded music, live touring and merchandise-related channels due to overlapping use by the KPop Demon Hunters brand,” the lawsuit states.

Hyde Lane is requesting Netflix and Netflix Studios be held liable for infringement, although no specified amount was listed in the suit.

The complaint arrives a year after the 2025 animated musical “KPop Demon Hunters” — which centered on Huntrix, a music trio who hunt demons — reached unprecedented heights, becoming Netflix’s most-watched animated original movie. Earlier this year, the film’s focus track, “Golden,” became the first K-pop song to win an Oscar.

Plans for the “KPop Demon Hunters” sequel are already underway as the lawsuit makes its way through the California court system.

ABC went to court Tuesday in an attempt to halt the Federal Communications Commission’s early review of its TV licenses, claiming the move is an attack on the broadcast outlet’s right to free speech.

The Disney-owned network asked a U.S. District Court to issue a temporary restraining order to stop the FCC’s action. The agency says it is investigating ABC stations over whether the company’s diversity and inclusion policies are in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.

But the suit alleges that the FCC is retaliating against ABC due to President Trump’s dissatisfaction with the network’s coverage of his administration. Trump has frequently threatened to have TV station licenses pulled when he believes he is treated unfairly on news and talk programs.

In late December, Trump posted on X that “If Network NEWSCASTS, and their Late Night Shows are almost 100% negative to President Donald J. Trump, MAGA, and the Republican Party, shouldn’t their very valuable Broadcast Licenses be terminated? I say YES!”

The suit claims the FCC “has not been shy about openly coercing ABC into changing its programming,” citing comments made last fall by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr about late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s remarks about the president.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways….to take action…on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC.”

Shortly after Carr made those remarks, two large TV station ownership groups had their ABC affiliates pull Kimmel off the air for a week after conservative blowback over the host’s comments regarding the shooting death of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.

The licenses for eight ABC-owned TV stations, including KABC in Los Angeles, were originally scheduled for renewal between 2028 and 2031. The suit said the current review is “extraordinarily early” and “that timing underscores the Commission’s true purpose: coercing and retaliating against a network that refuses to bow to the Administration’s demands.”

Trump recently called for ABC’s TV licenses to be revoked after the network did not carry his July 16 prime-time Oval Office address on election fraud. Carr said the network’s decision would be taken under consideration in the license review process.

Broadcast outlets have long had the option to determine whether to carry a presidential address. ABC presented Trump’s speech on its news streaming platform, as did NBC.

Carr has also questioned whether “The View” should be classified as a news program, which is exempt from the equal-time rule for political candidates who appear as guests.

ABC has asked the FCC to rule on the status of “The View,” which received an exemption from the rarely enforced equal time provision in 2002.

ABC has maintained that “The View” books politicians based on newsworthiness and not partisanship.

A former ABC News journalist is suing former colleague CBS News Chief Correspondent Matt Gutman over inappropriate remarks he allegedly made when they worked together several years ago.

Samira Said, a field producer for ABC News for four years, included the claims related to Gutman in a wrongful termination lawsuit filed Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court against her former employer and its parent The Walt Disney Co. Gutman, who joined CBS News in January, is named as a defendant as well.

The suit cited two incidents where Said claims Gutman created a hostile work environment by making inappropriate sexual comments while on the job. While waiting on a public line with Said during an assignment, Gutman allegedly “initiated a discussion rating a female correspondent’s appearance and reducing her professional standing to a numerical score based on her physical attributes.”

Said claims the other male crew members on the assignment joined in and tried to draw her into the conversation by soliciting her views. Said declined and stated the conversation was inappropriate.

The suit cited another exchange when the two covered a press event for a movie release. Said claims she and Gutman disagreed about whether they should leave the work site. “In front of multiple coworkers, Gutman responded by making a sexualized insinuation that Said must have an after-hours date in the city,” the suit said.

The suit also said the remarks made in front of co-workers were demeaning and “reduced [Said’s] professional judgment to a sexualized stereotype.”

Gutman, 48, was the first high-profile talent hire by CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss, who took charge of the division in October 2025. He recently filled in as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” and scored higher ratings than the program’s regular anchor Tony Dokoupil.

Gutman spent 17 years at ABC News where he mostly reported from Los Angeles.

The suit also claims Said was wrongfully terminated from ABC News in 2025 after dealing with mental health issues. The suit accuses the company of violating California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act by not making accommodations for her.

A Disney representative declined comment as executives have yet to see Said’s complaint. CBS News and Gutman also declined comment, having not seen the suit.

Said was assigned to cover the 2022 shooting at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, where she was required to interview child survivors who had witnessed the killing of their classmates. Afterward, she told her supervisor she needed a short leave to attend to her health but was denied.

A psychiatrist eventually approved a medical leave. The suit alleges that shortly after it began Said continued to get assignment requests from David Herndon, then head of ABC’s Los Angeles bureau.

Said was assigned to cover the Los Angeles wildfires in January 2025. She was sent home three weeks in after a supervisor observed her deteriorating physical condition, according to the suit.

Said injured her foot later that year while covering a weather-related story in the area. She reported the injury to supervisors but was denied a request for medical leave after being evaluated by a company doctor.

Said is seeking compensatory and punitive damages along with her attorneys’ fees.

THE price tag for John Travolta’s Saturday Night Fever suit is every bit as eye-watering as his dance moves.

The flared white three-piece outfit from the 1977 hit movie is expected to sell for as much as £300,000 at auction next month.

It is one of more than 1,400 items from film and TV that Propstore will be putting under the hammer in its four-day Summer Entertainment Memorabilia Auction.

The sale includes the fake axe wielded by Jack Nicholson in The Shining, a Harry ­Potter golden snitch and a hoverboard ridden by Michael J Fox in Back To The Future II.

A 15-inch stop-motion animation puppet from the 1949 film Mighty Joe Young is estimated to be worth up to £1.5million.

Here, we look at the most memorable mementoes up for grabs.

BANKS BIDS

Gordon Banks’ ‘Pele save’ shirt & 1966 medal set to fetch huge sums at auction

MEGA MEMORABILIA

Ringo Starr’s drum kit & Kurt Cobain’s guitar to sell for massive sum

NEW YORK — Mahmoud Khalil is suing the federal government and several private groups, alleging they were part of a conspiracy to suppress criticism of Israel by doxing, jailing and attempting to deport supporters of the pro-Palestinian movement.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court Tuesday, alleges a coordinated campaign among senior officials of President Trump’s administration, leaders of the Heritage Foundation and two online surveillance groups, Canary Mission and Betar.

According to Khalil’s lawyers, that “public-private partnership” — first brought to light in a separate trial last year — may violate the Ku Klux Klan Act, a Reconstruction-era law that sought to restrict government coordination with vigilante groups.

Inquiries to the Heritage Foundation, Canary Mission and Betar were not immediately returned on Tuesday.

A former graduate student at Columbia University, Khalil, 31, gained prominence as a spokesperson and leader for student activists protesting against Israel and its actions in Gaza.

Khalil, a legal permanent resident who is married to a U.S. citizen, was arrested in March 2025 by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in his campus apartment. He quickly became the face of the Trump administration crackdown on pro-Palestinian demonstrators.

He then spent 104 days in a Louisiana immigration jail, missing the birth of his first child, before a federal judge in New Jersey ordered his release.

Khalil’s deportation case, a priority for the Trump administration, has moved with unusual speed through executive-branch-controlled immigration courts, and may soon wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

He has forcefully denied that his role in pro-Palestinian protests amounts to antisemitism.

“My beliefs are not wanting my tax money or tuition going toward investments in weapons manufacturers for a genocide,” he previously told The Associated Press. “It’s as simple as that.”

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over his leaked tax returns was filed for an “improper purpose,” a judge said Monday in a scathing decision that referred one of his lawyers for discipline and characterized the $10-billion complaint as an exercise in self-dealing.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams accused Trump of having manipulated the court system when he sued a federal agency under his control, bypassing a requirement that parties in a lawsuit must have adverse interests and laying the groundwork for a settlement last spring that granted him immunity from tax audits and created a fund to compensate allies of the president who say they were unjustly persecuted.

Though the practical impacts of the ruling may be limited given the administration’s public pronouncements that the so-called $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund has been abandoned, the judge’s ruling nonetheless amounts to a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration and resurfaces a politically damaging storyline for acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche just as he prepares to face the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing Wednesday.

“The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law,” Williams wrote in her ruling.

She added: “The President may be the functional ‘dominus litus’ of the Executive Branch, but as a party to a civil suit, he, as well as all the parties and lawyers before a court, are bound by the rules. Ensuring that our courts are used only for the express purpose created by the Constitution is the obligation of every judge and an obligation that this Court must discharge in light of the matter before it. ”

The judge pointed to Blanche’s congressional testimony in early June in which he revealed that the “anti-weaponization” fund was no longer moving forward amid intense bipartisan backlash. Though nothing had been filed in court, Blanche appeared confident in his testimony that he “could speak for, and bind, both sides of this matter,” the judge wrote.

“Acting Attorney General Blanche’s apparent capacity to speak for both Plaintiffs and Defendants, sign a ‘settlement’ document on behalf of all Parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case,” the judge wrote.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Fatima Hussein and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz’s defamation suit against CNN, refusing to reconsider the high bar for press freedom set in the New York Times vs. Sullivan case.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The no-comment decision may signal the justices are not anxious to revisit another civil rights era landmark.

But the Dershowitz lawsuit may have been a less than ideal test case.

He sued CNN for $300 million, alleging its commentators distorted his arguments during President Trump’s first impeachment trial before the Senate.

He lost before a federal district judge and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Judges said he had presented no evidence of “actual malice” or knowing falsehoods, citing the doctrine set in the landmark decision.

Dershowitz’s appeal urged the Supreme Court to reconsider and discard the “actual malice” rule or to limit its use against private citizens who are treated as public figures.

In 1964, a unanimous Supreme Court said the 1st Amendment’s protection for the freedom of speech and the press limited state libel verdicts.

An all-white Alabama jury had awarded a $500-million judgment to Montgomery city commissioner L.B. Sullivan over a fund-raising ad for the Rev. Martin Luther King that had appeared in the New York Times.

The ad did not mention Sullivan by name but he said he was defamed by the ad’s criticism of the police.

Reversing that verdict, the court’s opinion said the 1st Amendment was intended to protect debate and criticism of public officials.

With that goal in mind, the justices barred defamation suits over minor or honest mistakes and said plaintiffs must show the defendants displayed “actual malice” by making statements they knew were false or showed a “reckless disregard” for the truth.

The decision was later extended to include public figures like Dershowitz.

In 2020, he defended President Trump’s conduct and told senators it fell short of an impeachable offense.

The House had accused Trump of threatening to withhold military aid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into investigating his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son Hunter.

In response to a question about an alleged quid pro quo, Dershowitz said a president can make deals that are in the public interest or his political interest, but not for a corrupt personal benefit.

“If a President does something which he believes will help get him elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” he said.

That statement drew sharp and immediate criticism on CNN.

Commentator Paul Begala asserted the “the Dershowitz doctrine would make presidents immune from every criminal act.”

CNN aired the full video of Dershowitz’s testimony and invited him to appear twice in the next two days to clarify his comments.

Months later, he filed a lawsuit alleging defamation and said CNN had perpetrated “a deliberate scheme to defraud its own audience.”

His suit was dismissed by judges who said he did not have enough evidence to send the case to a trial.

“In his zealous and highly scrutinized representation, Dershowitz made a spontaneous series of remarks before Congress that, he says, were misinterpreted by pundits,” Judge Britt Grant, a Trump appointee wrote for the 11th Circuit Court.

“If anything, the evidence shows that they believed in the truth of their reporting, and that they formed their opinions independently. Without evidence of actual malice Dershowitz’s defamation claim cannot go forward,” she said.

WASHINGTON  — Prison inmates whose religious rights are clearly violated by guards and wardens may not sue them for damages, a divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices said federal law protecting religious liberty allows for suits against state prison systems, but not employees of the prison.

The decision came in the case of a devout Rastafarian in Louisiana. Damon Landor had grown dreadlocks for nearly two decades. He had three weeks left in a five-month prison term when he was transferred to another prison in Louisiana.

He had with him a copy of a federal appeals court opinion that said Rastafarian inmates had a protected religious right to wear dreadlocks.

Congress in 2000 adopted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act to protect religious liberty.

But the guards threw the appeals court decision in the trash, and the warden ordered the guards to handcuff Landor to a chair and shave his head.

Shortly after he was released, Landor sued the warden and the guards for violating the 2000 law, known as RLUIPA, which promised “appropriate relief” to those whose rights were violated.

But a federal judge, the 5th Circuit Court and now the Supreme Court have tossed out Landor’s suit.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the six conservatives.

He explained that when the federal government gives states money for prisons, education, healthcare and other matters, it can require them to follow the law but it does not authorize private lawsuits against their employees

“To know that is enough to know the Court of Appeals was correct. Mr. Landor does not have a federal RLUIPA cause of action against the officers,” Gorsuch wrote. “Congress lacks regulatory authority to impose liability on them directly.”

The three liberals dissented.

“Today’s decision magically transforms a federal statute into an invitation to be accepted or declined, deemed binding only if each particular defendant has explicitly agreed to be penalized,” wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Prisoners like Landor who suffer violations of their religious freedom in state prisons — no matter how blatant — will often be left remediless.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed.

Civil liberties advocates denounced the decision.

“Our justice system is built on the promise of accountability when rights are violated,” said Rachel Rossi, president of the Alliance for Justice. “If there is no remedy for such a transgression, then there is no justice. This ruling will further erode critical civil rights protections of the far too many incarcerated people in this country.”

Rachel Laser, chief executive of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said today’s decision “endangers the religious freedom of incarcerated people, like Damon Landor, who are particularly vulnerable to abuse and having unnecessary burdens placed on their religious exercise. Once again, we see a court that will bend over backward for the religious freedom of Christians, but allows the government to trample the religious freedom of non-Christians.”

Dalton Rushing was frustrated. He just chased a slider in the dirt — again. And this time, the game was on the line. The Dodgers were down to their last out. He was down to his last strike.

So he took a moment, took a breath, and looked to the Dodgers dugout.

The first person he spotted was Mookie Betts, who had just cut the Orioles’ lead to a run with a solo homer. Betts was locked in with Rushing, brimming with confidence, cheering him on.

“For a guy like that, a guy that’s lived in that moment, he’s succeeded in that moment, he’s failed in that moment, he knows what it feels like, it’s pretty special,” Rushing recounted.

Rushing’s eyes traveled along the railing, noting his teammates all on the top step, all relying on him.

He dug into the box, expecting the slider that Baltimore’s Ryan Helsley threw next — it was high, for a ball. Then Rushing got a fastball he could drive. And he did not miss.

The next moments in the Dodgers’ 6-5 walk-off win Friday were chaos.

Rushing lined a tying single into right field, giving Alex Call time to score from second. Call slid across the plate as the throw from Orioles right fielder Tyler O’Neill took for a long hop to catcher Samuel Basallo.

Basallo misjudged it, taking an unhurried shuffle up the line, before the ball glanced off his glove and rolled toward the Dodgers dugout.

Third base coach Dino Ebel waved home Ryan Ward, who scored standing up.

Manager Dave Roberts, who looked down at his card when the throw was in the air, was already thinking through extra innings when the crowd erupted again. He heard field coordinator Bob Geren shouting something like, “The run counts.”

The Dodgers (49-27) ran onto the field and swarmed Rushing, who had just reached second. They jumped and yelled as the Dodgers Stadium lights flashed around them.

“It was good to get Freddie [Freeman] a night off for being the guy in the middle for a change, you know?” Rushing said with a grin. “No, it’s a great feeling, and I think it honestly just feels great that we won that baseball game.”

For several innings, it looked like they wouldn’t.

Dalton Rushing celebrates after hitting a run-scoring single in the ninth to help lift the Dodgers to a 6-5 walk-off win over the Baltimore Orioles at Dodger Stadium.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

The Dodgers had jumped out to an early 3-0 lead, on a two-run single from Max Muncy in the first inning and an RBI double from Andy Pages in the second. Then their scoring dried up.

Rushing was having as frustrating of a night as anyone, with a line out and three strikeouts.

His first strikeout was part of a brutal sequence. The Dodgers loaded the bases with no outs in the third. Then Ward, Rushing and Alex Freeland, all went down swinging.

Rushing struck out on a slider in the dirt. And Orioles starter Trey Gibson got him to bite on the same putaway pitch in the fifth.

Rushing’s reactions steadily grew more animated, on the field and in the dugout.

Mookie Betts celebrates as he runs the bases after hitting a solo home run in the ninth inning Friday against the Orioles.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Alex Freeland signals safe after sliding past Baltimore catcher Samuel Basallo to score on a double by Andy Pages in the second inning Friday.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

“He plays with a fire under his ass,” Freeland said. “He gets after it. He expects nothing but the best for himself day in and day out, and that comes with it.”

Said Roberts: “After he … vents, he does a good job of collecting himself to get back into the next play, the next at-bat, catching.”

On Friday, he was catching Roki Sasaki, who faced just one batter over the minimum through five innings. But during the third time through the order, the Orioles finally figured him out and hit back-to-back home runs.

With two outs and a runner on, Sasaki yanked a splitter to the inside edge of the strike zone to Gunnar Henderson, who lifted it over the wall in right field. Pete Alonso then homered to left-center field on an inside fastball about belt high to tie the score.

“I thought he threw the baseball really well,” Roberts said. “I liked the way he competed. The fastball command was good. He was fantastic tonight.”

The Orioles (35-42) pulled ahead against the Dodgers bullpen. Will Klein surrendered a seventh-inning single to Jackson that sent two baserunners, including one inherited from Dodgers left-hander Jack Dreyer, across the plate.

Kyle Hurt and Blake Treinen threw clean eighth and ninth innings.

Finally, in the bottom of the ninth, Betts ended the Dodgers’ scoring drought. Then Muncy — later replaced by the pinch-running Call — and Ward drew walks.

With two outs, Rushing stepped up to the plate, fell behind in the count 0-2 and reset.

“I look in the dugout, and all those guys care about is that next pitch, and the next pitch after that, and the next pitch after that,” Rushing said. “They just want you to win one pitch at a time.”

So, that’s what he did.

The classic Chicano film “Zoot Suit” is celebrating its 45th anniversary this year in style.

The Golden Globe-nominated movie, featuring a lead performance by Edward James Olmos, was based on a stage play penned by legendary screenwriter and director Luis Valdez, who drew inspiration from a pamphlet about the 1942 Sleepy Lagoon murder case and the riots that it sparked.

On Thursday it was announced that the flick will be screened at The Ford amphitheater on July 8 to honor its notable benchmark and enduring legacy. The special screening will include a conversation with Valdez, Olmos and actor-educator Cristina Frías, who will discuss the movie’s production, influence and place in the L.A. film canon.

“‘Zoot Suit’ changed the way our stories could be seen on screen,” Olmos said in a statement. “It gave voice to a history that many people had never been taught and showed the beauty, strength and complexity of the Chicano experience. Forty-five years later, the film continues to inspire because it is about more than one moment in time. It is about identity, dignity and the responsibility we have to remember where we come from.”

The screening will also feature a vintage car show put on by the Pachuco Car Club, which will showcase the rides reminiscent of the time period shown in the movie.

In June 1943, L.A. was engulfed in the lawlessness and violence that became known as the Zoot Suit Riots. The name is misleading because it suggests that the zoot suiters — the young Mexican, Black and Filipino men and boys who wore the flamboyant outfits — were the perpetrators.

In fact, they were the victims.

The attacks by servicemen and white Angelenos on zoot suiters, derided as “gamin dandies” in The Times, were driven by prejudice and the anti-immigrant attitudes of the era. The roots of the unrest can be traced to events that occurred more than a year earlier — such as the incarceration of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor, as well as the murder of a young man, which was later known as the Sleepy Lagoon murder case.

In his 1981 review of the film, The Times’ former film critic Kevin Thomas praised Valdez’s direction and the strength of the cast.

“Valdez has captured well many of the elements of the era that contributed to the fate of the Sleepy Lagoon defendants — the sensationalist press, the feverish patriotism of wartime and the rampant bigotry directed at all minorities,” Thomas wrote. “At the same time, Valdez makes clear that various people outside the Mexican-American community helped in the struggle to mount an appeal for the Sleepy Lagoon defendants. And he questions the entire validity of the switch-bladed, cynical pachuco mystique as [Daniel Valdez’s] Henry comes to realize that El Pachuco [Olmos] is at once his best friend — and worst enemy.”

The original 1979 Broadway run of the “Zoot Suit” play catapulted Olmos to the national stage and led to him getting a Tony nomination for best featured actor in a play.

“It was a monumental moment in time, and we captured lightning in a bottle,” Olmos told The Times in 2023. “Not only did it change the course of Latinos in theater but it touched the very soul of the culture. It was catching the voice of the pachuco.”

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.

June 12 (UPI) — A federal judge blocked a lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue.

In a 15-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns granted ActBlue a preliminary injunction banning Paxton from continuing the litigation, finding that ActBlue was likely to win in its claims that the suit infringed on its First Amendment’s free-speech protections.

The judge said the suit was filed in retaliation of ActBlue raising funds for James Talarico, who is running for Senate against Paxton.

“The lawsuit in Texas is undoubtedly an adverse action,” Stearns wrote in the order. “And having previously found bad faith, the court agrees with ActBlue that the evidence in the record compels the conclusion that, far from protecting Texas consumers, the action was filed in retaliation for ActBlue’s fundraising on behalf of Talarico, Paxton’s current political rival for the Senate seat.”

Paxton began an investigation in 2023 against the organization for allegedly enabling international donors to make gifts through gift cards and prepaid debit cards. President Donald Trump requested the investigation before he was re-elected. Paxton filed suit in April.

“The truth is plain and captured in Paxton’s own declarations: The lawsuit was filed in retaliation for (and in an attempt to suppress) ActBlue’s efforts to fund [James] Talarico’s campaign,” Stearns ruled.

ActBlue sued in Boston to stop Paxton, claiming Paxton’s suit was “rife with false and inflammatory allegations” and was filed soon after a $2 million funding day for Talarico. ActBlue is based in Massachusetts.

“Paxton’s public statements in the wake of filing the case against ActBlue reveal his true motivation,” Stearns wrote. “While a prosecutor is entitled to a large degree of prosecutorial discretion and has a right to make a considered public accounting of his actions, Paxton did not hesitate in drawing a connection between the lawsuit and his candidacy for Senate.”

Paxton had alleged that ActBlue had misrepresented itself to donors.

“The platform does nothing more than facilitate political donations from private donors, who seek out its convenience, anonymity and aggregation of the benefit bestowed on chosen political candidates,” Stearns ruled.

President Trump is known for being combative. And to mark his birthday Sunday, he’s literally picking a fight — actually seven of them. But a legion of opponents are determined to squash the celebration.

Trump has been gearing up for weeks for UFC Freedom 250, a mixed martial arts extravaganza that will turn the historic White House into a one-night fight house. The event designed to simultaneously celebrate his 80th birthday and commemorate America’s 250th anniversary will take place in a massive octagon-shaped structure that has been erected on the South Lawn of the White House.

The invitation-only event is scheduled to stream live on Paramount+, which is owned by David Ellison, one of Trump’s closest allies. UFC fights began streaming on the service earlier this year, with some airing on CBS, one of the first major deals signed under Ellison.

White House spokesman Davis Ingle has called the UFC card “one of the greatest and most historic sports events in history, and President Trump hosting it at the White House is a testament to his vision to celebrate America’s monumental 250th anniversary.”

But the gala is facing fierce legal challenges from activists who say UFC Freedom 250 is a scam flavored by financial and political corruption, accusing Trump and his close friends UFC chief Dana White and Ellison of benefiting financially from the event. Opponents say Trump has purchased stock in UFC’s parent company, TKO Group Holdings, while pointing out that UFC Freedom 250 is happening several weeks before the Fourth of July anniversary.

White House officials have called those allegations baseless and have asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit.

As promo spots showing the combatants in fight mode fill the airwaves, the Public Integrity Project watchdog group has filed a lawsuit trying to derail the event. While the National Park Service is named as one of the defendants in the suit, environmental groups and former park service staff have decried the event.

Dana White, left, and then-President-elect Trump attend a UFC event held at Madison Square Garden in New York City in 2024.

(Sarah Stier / Getty Images)

Though some legal experts have predicted that those efforts may fall short, UFC Freedom 250 marks the latest in a relentless stream of furors shadowing Trump as he faces sharply declining poll numbers and harsh criticism over his economic and domestic policies, as well as his handling of the war with Iran. Here’s what we know about the event and what to expect Sunday.

What is UFC Freedom 250?

The event will take place in a mammoth claw-like outdoor arena that will spotlight the White House in the background. Undisputed lightweight champion Ilia Topuria will face off against current interim lightweight champion Justin Gaethje in the main event, which is billed as a five-round title unification battle.

A six-fight undercard, including a heavyweight interim title bout between Alex Pereira and Ciryl Gane, will precede the main event.

Who is putting on the fight?

White‘s UFC is staging the event. White, who has stressed in interviews that no taxpayer dollars are involved, has said that Trump made the suggestion of a White House event when they were together at a recent UFC fight.

Wouldn’t baseball or basketball be a more appropriate sport to feature in a celebration of America instead of a cage fight?

Perhaps. But Trump is a huge fan of boxing and mixed martial arts. He was flanked by several of the fighters who will be participating in the event when he first announced the bouts at the Oval Office. He gushed as he introduced them individually, calling them warriors: “No people in sports are tougher than these people.”

But Conor Friedersdorf, a staff writer for the Atlantic, put forth a different theory: “On Trump’s 80th birthday, blood sport will be the diversion of choice at the White House because he wants to associate his presidency and himself with the violent domination and humiliation of rivals,” he wrote in a newsletter. “America itself is weaker now on the world stage than it was when Trump began either of his presidencies.”

White has credited the president’s devotion to the sport with propelling it into the cultural mainstream, and he is predicting a record-breaking global audience.

Where can viewers watch the event?

UFC Freedom 250 will stream on Paramount+ as part of a $7.7-billion deal that Ellison struck with TKO Group Holdings, the owner of UFC. The broadcast starts at 5 p.m. Pacific.

Dana White, left, and President Trump attend UFC 327 in Miami in April.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

The event is another apparent maneuver for Ellison to curry favor with Trump as he seeks his support and approval for a $111-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery. Trump has made no secret for his desire for shake up Warner Bros. Discovery-owned CNN, which he regards as a hostile platform.

Will this be a star-studded event?

Don’t expect a New York Knicks-style celebrity row. Although several stars including Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Adam Sandler, Mario Lopez and former star quarterback Tom Brady have reportedly been invited by White, none have indicated that they plan to show up.

White has said that 70,000 fans have registered for free tickets to attend the fan event at the Ellipse near the White House.

Since it’s Trump’s birthday, is UFC Freedom 250 a political event?

“This isn’t politics,” White said recently on ESPN’s “The Pat McAfee Show. “This is about the United States, what this country is about … If you love America, you’re going to love this event. It has nothing to do with politics. We just happen to be on the White House lawn and the president of the United States will be there.”

Why is there opposition to the fights?

The lawsuit filed by the Public Integrity Project contends that UFC Freedom 250 violates federal regulations that prohibit sporting events on federal park lands. Two Virginia activists who are plaintiffs in the suit claim that they “want to uphold the rule of law and protect our nation’s most cherished monuments from corrupt exploitation.”

The suit contends that the plan includes a weigh-in at the Lincoln Memorial and a pre-fight walkout from the Oval Office.

According to the suit, “The president is giving White and his company what none have enjoyed before: unfettered access to the White House and Lincoln Memorial to state a private, for-profit sports event with all of the promotional and branding opportunities that accompany such access.”

Brendan Ballou, chief executive of the Public Integrity Project, said in an interview on MS NOW that the event and advertising is “fundamentally the private profiteering of our national monuments, and that is fundamentally what is violating the law and why we are suing.”

Attorneys for musician Chuck Redd say a D.C. Superior Court judge dismissed a breach of contract lawsuit filed against the artist after he canceled a Christmas Eve performance at the Kennedy Center in protest of President Trump’s influence over the venue.

The dismissal was granted Friday under Washington’s Anti-SLAPP laws, which are designed to prevent meritless lawsuits intended to silence opposing points of view on matters of public interest.

Redd, a drummer and vibraphone player who has toured with Dizzy Gillespie, Ray Brown and others, had presided over holiday “Jazz Jams” at the Kennedy Center since 2006. He called off last year’s performance shortly after Trump’s handpicked board for the Kennedy Center voted to add the president’s name to the venue, which Congress named for President Kennedy after his assassination.

“The Center sued Mr. Redd because he publicly and rightly objected to adding Donald Trump’s name to the Kennedy Center, a living memorial to former President John F. Kennedy,” Lisa J. Banks, one of Redd’s lawyers, said in a statement. “The lawsuit against Mr. Redd was political retribution, pure and simple, by the Trump Kennedy Center, and the Court correctly saw it as such in dismissing the case with prejudice.”

Redd told the Associated Press in an email Saturday that he is “very pleased with the judge’s ruling.”

The motion to dismiss, filed in March, argued that Redd wasn’t contractually obligated to perform. It included the contract provided by the Kennedy Center, which the artist never signed.

Representatives for the Kennedy Center did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the suit’s dismissal.

Goldin writes for the Associated Press.

Los Angeles County prosecutors are reviewing two sex assault cases against Sean “Diddy” Combs that stem from allegations made by a Florida music producer last year, law enforcement officials and the alleged victim said Wednesday.

Investigators from the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department presented the cases to prosecutors in January 2026, according to a statement from the district attorney’s office.

A spokesman for the district attorney’s office declined to say when the alleged incidents occurred or explain why it has taken nearly nine months to make a charging decision.

Combs — who rose to fame as a hip-hop mogul in the 1990s as the face of Bad Boy Records — has gone through a years-long public downfall following myriad allegations of domestic violence and sex abuse. In July, a New York jury convicted him of transporting prostitutes across state lines for drug-fueled bacchanals referred to as “freak offs.”

He was sentenced to four years in federal prison and remains incarcerated at a minimum-security prison in New Jersey.

Combs’ reputation and business began to publicly unravel in 2023 after federal authorities raided his homes, and a leaked video showed him beating his ex-girlfriend, Casandra “Cassie” Ventura, at a Los Angeles hotel.

TMZ first reported on the D.A.’s office’s decision to review the L.A. allegations. A spokesman for Combs declined to comment.

In November, The Times reported that the Sheriff’s Department was investigating Combs on suspicion of a sex assault that happened in East L.A.

Jonathan Hay — a Florida-based music producer who was working with Combs on a project to remix songs written by deceased rap legend Notorious B.I.G., also known as Christopher Wallace — said Wednesday that he is the alleged victim in the cases under review by the district attorney.

Hay told several media outlets in 2025 that he was the “John Doe” from a civil lawsuit filed last July that accused Combs of sex assault in 2020 and 2021. Hay first reported the assaults to police in Largo, Fla., he has said.

According to the suit, Hay, Combs and others were at a Los Angeles warehouse that stored some of Wallace’s possessions in 2020 when Combs “provided drugs to everyone present” and subsequently began masturbating in front of Hay.

Combs “started watching porn on his cell phone, grabbed one of Biggie’s shirts off a rack, and began to masturbate with it in front of the plaintiff,” the suit alleges. In a separate incident in March 2021, Hay alleged Combs forced him to perform oral sex, according to the suit.

“I have an overwhelming feeling of hope as we are knocking on the door of criminal justice,” Hay wrote in an email to The Times on Wednesday. “I am beyond grateful that both the LASD and LAPD investigated this case thoroughly for many months and submitted it to the District Attorney.”

Combs’ civil attorney Jonathan Davis has previously denied Hay’s allegations.

“Let me make it absolutely clear, Mr. Combs categorically denies as false and defamatory all claims that he sexually abused anyone,” Davis said in a statement last year. “He looks forward to vindicating himself in court, where such matters are decided — and not in the media — based on admissible, material evidence, not rank speculation and unsubstantiated allegations.”

Times staff writer Richard Winton contributed to this report.