ReportWire

Tag: Lawsuit

  • Minnesota school districts, teachers unions sue to block immigration agents from school property

    [ad_1]

    Two Minnesota school districts and the state’s largest teachers union on Wednesday sued to block federal immigration agents from showing up to school property, which educators say is distressing families and disrupting student learning. 

    The move comes amid Operation Metro Surge targeting the state over the last several weeks, which is now somewhat receding with a drawdown of 700 agents “effective immediately,” Border Czar Tom Homan announced. 

    Fridley Public Schools, Duluth Public Schools and Education Minnesota in the suit argue that the Department of Homeland Security didn’t follow proper rulemaking procedure under the law when the agency last year abruptly rescinded a policy designating schools as protected areas where immigration enforcement should be limited to very narrow circumstances. 

    The complaint, filed in federal court, asks a judge to block the new policy and prohibit agents from carrying out immigration operations within 1,000 feet of a school or school bus stop “absent a judicial warrant or genuinely exigent circumstances.”

    “In recognition of this fundamental importance of public education, and of the disruptive effect on education that would occur if immigration authorities were to conduct enforcement operations in or near schools, the federal government has for more than 30 years restricted immigration enforcement near schools and other “sensitive locations,’” the filing says. “The federal government has long recognized that it could effectively enforce immigration laws without, in its words, ‘denying or limiting . . . children access to their schools.’”

    The lawsuit cites more than a dozen instances across several districts where federal agents were spotted in school parking lots and near bus stops and along bus routes. It describes one incident in Apple Valley when a preschool teacher “was detained by ICE when she exited the school building after being tricked to come outside by a false claim that someone hit her car.”

    Attendance has dropped by one-third in Fridley since the surge began. Brenda Lewis, the district’s superintendent, on Wednesday explained that earlier in the morning, elementary school students saw ICE agents in cars roaming outside of the building and that a mother—who is a U.S. citizen—arrived with her child and was followed by two ICE vehicles. 

    “Do you know why this is happening? Because I am telling the truth on behalf of our district. That is why this is happening. This is clear and present terror,” she Lewis said. 

    In a statement to WCCO, the Department of Homeland Security said agents are not going to schools to arrest children, but instead to protect them. 

    “Criminals are no longer be able [sic] to hide in America’s schools to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement and instead trusts them to use common sense,” said Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of DHS. “If a dangerous illegal alien felon were to flee into a school, or a child sex offender is working as an employee, there may be a situation where an arrest is made to protect public safety. But this has not happened.”

    The detention of five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos alongside his father after he arrived home from preschool in Columbia Heights last month put the impact of the ongoing immigration crackdown on schools in the national spotlight. 

    Peg Nelson, an elementary school teacher in the district where Liam attends, said her school sees an average of 130 absences a day out of 570 students, a majority of whom are Hispanic. 

    “Our district recently began offering an online option for students who do not feel safe coming to school in person, but we don’t have enough resources to accommodate every request,” Nelson said. “I fear students will fall behind because they’re unable to safely attend classes.”

    Kristen Sinicariello, a high school social studies teacher in the same Columbia Heights district, said one quarter of the student body is choosing remote learning. She explained that last week while driving to school, she saw ICE agents at a nearby park. 

    “A student in my AP World History class then arrived late to school only to let me know he had been pulled over by ICE on his way to school and was going to spend the class period in the office with the counselors,” she told reporters. “Today, this student has his head down all in class here for himself and his family have made him unable to learn.”

    Lewis and John Magas, superintendent of Duluth Public Schools, said there is fear of retaliation among school leaders that is keeping other concerned districts from joining the lawsuit, too. 

    “They’re afraid of retribution because that’s the playbook these days. They’re afraid that federal funding will be taken away, or that there will be false allegations or investigations that are meant just to stop this type of thing,” he said. 

    In:

    [ad_2]

    Caroline Cummings

    Source link

  • L.A. stopped a couple from demolishing Marilyn Monroe’s home. Now, they’re suing

    [ad_1]

    A Brentwood couple is suing the city of Los Angeles and Mayor Karen Bass, claiming their constitutional rights were violated when city officials blocked them from demolishing the home where Marilyn Monroe died in 1962.

    In a 37-page complaint that accuses the city of collusion and bias, the lawsuit filed by homeowners Brinah Milstein and Roy Bank claims L.A. “deprived Plaintiffs of their intended demolition of the house and the use and enjoyment of their Property without any actual benefit to the public.”

    It’s yet another chapter in a saga surrounding the fate of the famous property, which began in 2023 when Milstein, a wealthy real estate heiress, and Bank, a reality TV producer with credits including “The Apprentice” and “Survivor,” bought the home for $8.35 million. They own the property next door and hoped to tear down Monroe’s place to expand their estate.

    The pair quickly obtained demolition permits from the Department of Building and Safety, but once their plans became public, an outcry erupted. A legion of historians, Angelenos and Monroe fans claimed the 1920s haunt, where the actor died in 1962, is an indelible piece of the city’s history.

    Councilmember Traci Park, who represents L.A.’s 11th Council District where the home is located, said she received hundreds of calls and emails urging her to protect it. In September 2023, she held a news conference dressed as Monroe — bright red lipstick, bobbing blond hair — urging the City Council to declare it a landmark.

    The Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission started the landmark application process in January 2024, barring the owners from destroying the house in the meantime. L.A. City Council unanimously voted to designate it as a historic cultural monument a few months later, officially saving it from destruction.

    It’s not the first legal challenge brought by Milstein and Bank. The pair sued the city in 2024, accusing the city of “backdoor machinations” in preserving a house that doesn’t deserve to be a historic cultural monument.

    An L.A. Superior Court Judge threw out the suit in September 2025, calling it “an ill-disguised motion to win so they can demolish the home.”

    The latest lawsuit includes a variety of damages, claiming the property’s monument status has turned it into a tourist attraction, bringing trespassers who leap over the walls surrounding the property. In November, burglars broke into the home searching for memorabilia, the suit alleges.

    The lawsuit accuses the city of taking no efforts to stop trespassers and failing to compensate the owners for their loss of use and enjoyment of the property. It also notes that the homeowners offered to pay to relocate the home, but the city ignored them.

    An aerial view of the house in Brentwood where Marilyn Monroe died is seen on July 26, 2002.

    (Mel Bouzad / Getty Images)

    The feud has stirred up a larger conversation on what exactly is worth protecting in Southern California, a region loaded with architectural marvels and Old Hollywood haunts swirling with celebrity legend and gossip.

    Fans claim the house, located on 5th Helena Drive, is too iconic to be torn down. Monroe bought it for $75,000 in 1962 and died there six months later, the only home she ever owned by herself. The phrase “Cursum Perficio” — Latin for “The journey ends here” — was adorned in tile on the front porch, adding to the property’s lore.

    Milstein and Bank claim it has been remodeled so many times over the years, with 14 different owners and more than a dozen renovation permits issued over the last 60 years, that it bears no resemblance to its former self. Some Brentwood locals consider it a nuisance because fans and tour buses flock to the address for pictures, even though the only thing visible from the street is the privacy wall.

    “There is not a single piece of the house that includes any physical evidence that Ms. Monroe ever spent a day at the house, not a piece of furniture, not a paint chip, not a carpet, nothing,” their previous lawsuit claimed.

    With their latest lawsuit, Milstein and Bank are seeking a court order allowing them to demolish the house and compensation for the decline in property value after the city’s decision to declare it a monument.

    [ad_2]

    Jack Flemming

    Source link

  • Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    [ad_1]

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    This 13 page document lays out DHS policy for use of force. Now these rules apply to Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and Secret Service and make it clear what protocols agents should follow before any use of force is applied. And while it’s easy to look back and replay video over and over after the fact, experts we talked to told us agents need to rely on these policies and training, especially in critical moments. Unfortunately, It, it’s for me as *** field office director, this all of this is very um upsetting. Darius Reeves, *** former ICE field office director, spent nearly 20 years with ICE and Homeland Security, *** time when he says their operations were not drawing public attention. No one had any idea about ICE. We were very professional, we were very clean, and this is. There are far too many US citizens being involved. What troubles Reeves now isn’t just the outcome of recent encounters, but whether ICE and Border Patrol are following their own use of force and de-escalation policies. When is use of force an option? If it’s an immediate Imminent threat. The National Investigative Unit reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s use of force policy alongside video from the two recent killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good and talked with experts including Reeves. DHS policy is clear officers should attempt de-escalation, issue verbal commands, reassess when resistance stops, and discontinue force once an incident is under control. Video from the encounter involving 30 seven-year-old Alex Preddy shows in the minute before the shooting, Preddy is recording from *** distance. Agents push *** woman who grabs onto Preddy. He’s then pushed. An agent pushes another woman near Preddy, who then steps in with an open hand up, then turns away from the agent as he’s sprayed with *** chemical. They continually sprayed him even when his back was to them, and then everybody piles on. Based on the video we’ve seen, in your opinion. Was deadly force used correctly on Alex Peretti? Absolutely not. The second case involving Renee Good raises *** different policy question. DHS rules place strict limits on the use of deadly force in and around vehicles. Mark Brown used to train ICE agents and explains the strict rules. The general practice was that They went away from shooting in the moving vehicles. Reeves and Brown add that incidents need to be carefully examined afterward to prevent future violations. Are we debriefing every day after, you know, to see, OK, what are we doing for our own accountability? This is *** major travesty, um. And you, you’re going to have to stick to the policy. The DHS policy states that every agent must be trained in use of force and de-escalation policies at least once *** year, and every 2 years they must conduct less than lethal force training. The policy we reviewed was last updated in 2023. Reporting in Washington, I’m national investigative correspondent John Cardinelli.

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    Updated: 10:27 AM PST Jan 31, 2026

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policiesA federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.”Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) —

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policies

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

    It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

    The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

    The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

    “Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.

    Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    [ad_1]

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    This 13 page document lays out DHS policy for use of force. Now these rules apply to Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and Secret Service and make it clear what protocols agents should follow before any use of force is applied. And while it’s easy to look back and replay video over and over after the fact, experts we talked to told us agents need to rely on these policies and training, especially in critical moments. Unfortunately, It, it’s for me as *** field office director, this all of this is very um upsetting. Darius Reeves, *** former ICE field office director, spent nearly 20 years with ICE and Homeland Security, *** time when he says their operations were not drawing public attention. No one had any idea about ICE. We were very professional, we were very clean, and this is. There are far too many US citizens being involved. What troubles Reeves now isn’t just the outcome of recent encounters, but whether ICE and Border Patrol are following their own use of force and de-escalation policies. When is use of force an option? If it’s an immediate Imminent threat. The National Investigative Unit reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s use of force policy alongside video from the two recent killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good and talked with experts including Reeves. DHS policy is clear officers should attempt de-escalation, issue verbal commands, reassess when resistance stops, and discontinue force once an incident is under control. Video from the encounter involving 30 seven-year-old Alex Preddy shows in the minute before the shooting, Preddy is recording from *** distance. Agents push *** woman who grabs onto Preddy. He’s then pushed. An agent pushes another woman near Preddy, who then steps in with an open hand up, then turns away from the agent as he’s sprayed with *** chemical. They continually sprayed him even when his back was to them, and then everybody piles on. Based on the video we’ve seen, in your opinion. Was deadly force used correctly on Alex Peretti? Absolutely not. The second case involving Renee Good raises *** different policy question. DHS rules place strict limits on the use of deadly force in and around vehicles. Mark Brown used to train ICE agents and explains the strict rules. The general practice was that They went away from shooting in the moving vehicles. Reeves and Brown add that incidents need to be carefully examined afterward to prevent future violations. Are we debriefing every day after, you know, to see, OK, what are we doing for our own accountability? This is *** major travesty, um. And you, you’re going to have to stick to the policy. The DHS policy states that every agent must be trained in use of force and de-escalation policies at least once *** year, and every 2 years they must conduct less than lethal force training. The policy we reviewed was last updated in 2023. Reporting in Washington, I’m national investigative correspondent John Cardinelli.

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    Updated: 1:27 PM EST Jan 31, 2026

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policiesA federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.”Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) —

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policies

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

    It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

    The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

    The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

    “Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.

    Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Group of Prince George’s Co. residents file suit against county council over at-large seat appointment – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    A group of residents in Prince George’s County, Maryland, has filed a lawsuit against the county council and member Wala Blegay hoping to overturn her December appointment to an at-large seat.

    A group of residents in Prince George’s County, Maryland, has filed a lawsuit against the county council and member Wala Blegay hoping to overturn her December appointment to an at-large seat.

    According to county code, any vacancy that occurs during the last year of a term will be filled by someone appointed by a majority of the remaining members of the council. The plaintiffs in this case aren’t claiming the council doesn’t have the right to do that; their argument is with how the council executed that process.

    Blegay was already on the council representing District 6 and was appointed to the at-large seat, creating another opening on the council. That opening was then filled by Danielle Hunter, who had been working for County Executive Aisha Braveboy.

    During the hearing for the District 6 vacancy, Braveboy spoke in favor of Hunter’s selection at the beginning of the meeting, before the rest of the candidates were given a chance to make their pitch to the council.

    “From our position, they are abusing this process and using it to create vacancies and then fill them with the individuals that they have already preselected or the individuals that they want to choose and not give a fair opportunity to citizens,” said Tonya Wingfield, a Fort Washington resident and one of those listed as a plaintiff in the case.

    Wingfield is hoping the case will be heard in Anne Arundel County, and that a judge there will put Blegay’s appointment to the at-large seat on hold until deciding whether the process was proper.

    “A lot of this stuff has been leaked out before it happened,” she said. “Then, when you start seeing what was leaked actually coming to fruition, you see a process that is being abused and setting a precedent that the language in the charter never intended.”

    A spokeswoman for the council said the body was merely following the county charter in selecting Blegay, who was one of more than 30 applicants for the at-large seat vacated by Calvin Hawkins.

    “Our legal department has reviewed the baseless allegations in the complaint and is confident that this frivolous lawsuit will be dismissed,” said Lindsay Watts, the council’s senior director of communications.

    “The Council followed the code by advertising the vacancy and considering all applications. Any Council Member appointed this year must run for election to hold the seat beyond December 2026.”

    Blegay declined WTOP’s request for comment.

    “That was not the intent of this charter language,” Wingfield said. “We want a process where individuals are actually considered. We definitely want to make sure that the county executive does not weigh in and put their thumb on the scale, as we have seen happen with the process that’s gone down the road with the recent vacancies.”

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2026 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    John Domen

    Source link

  • Detainees at Whipple federal building in Minneapolis have been denied access to lawyer, suit says

    [ad_1]

    A newly filed lawsuit accuses federal agents at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis of denying detainees of their right to contact a lawyer.  

    The lawsuit filed by the nonprofit organization Advocates for Human Rights is asking courts to intervene and restore detainees’ access to legal counsel and require confidential attorney-client communications. The Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are among those named in the suit.

    The lawsuit outlines an instance that unfolded on Tuesday, in which a St. Paul woman with a pending asylum case was detained during a required check-in at the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program in Bloomington, Minnesota. The woman recently had cranial surgery and has significant medical needs, according to the suit.

    The woman’s attorney immediately went to the Whipple building to consult with her, but upon arrival, federal agents refused to allow the two to communicate, the suit says.

    The lawsuit says that since Jan. 11, detainees have not been provided with “constitutionally adequate or statutorily compliant access to counsel” and detainees are not granted an outgoing phone call. Instead, the lawsuit says that detainees are told they will be allowed an outgoing call after they have been “booked,” at which time they have been transferred to a detention facility outside the state.

    The lawsuit also says the Whipple building lacks the adequate infrastructure such as beds, toilets and private phones to hold people for long periods of time. However, some detainees are held for “days,” the suit says.

    Attorneys, too, have been threatened or intimidated by federal agents at Whipple, according to the suit.

    A newly filed lawsuit accuses federal agents at the Whipple building in Minneapolis of denying detainees of their right to contact a lawyer.  s.

    Getty Images


    The lawsuit echoes one filed last fall by the ACLU of Illinois and the MacArthur Justice Center, which outlined “inhumane” conditions at an ICE processing center in Broadview, Illinois. The people inside the facility, the lawsuit said, could not reach their attorneys.

    Last week, Minnesota Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith wrote a letter to ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons after hearing that detainees, including a U.S. citizen, were denied access to counsel. 

    “As you know the right to due process and the right to counsel are foundational constitutional guarantees enshrined in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. ICE and all other federal law enforcement agencies are required to honor these constitutional rights, regardless of a person’s immigration status,” the letter said.

    The Whipple building has been the center of federal immigration enforcement activity since the start of Operation Metro Surge. Protesters have gathered at the site daily.

    Earlier this month, Democratic Reps. Angie Craig, Ilhan Omar and Kelly Morrison were denied access to the facility. Officials who turned them away cited a newly imposed seven-day notice policy for congressional oversight visits.

    WCCO has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment.

    In:

    [ad_2]

    Aki Nace

    Source link

  • Families of two men believed to have been killed in military strike on boat sue US government over ‘unlawful’ attacks

    [ad_1]

    As the U.S. military began launching strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean last year, a young Trinidadian man who was in Venezuela for work was searching for a way home, according to a lawsuit filed on Tuesday.Chad Joseph, 26, had been in Venezuela for months fishing and doing farm work when he began looking for a boat to hitch a ride back to Las Cuevas in Trinidad and Tobago, where his wife and three children lived. But as the U.S. began targeting vessels officials said were carrying drugs destined for American streets, Joseph “became increasingly fearful” of making the journey, court documents say. The concerns became so real that in early September, his wife recalled, he called to assure her that he had not been aboard a vessel just hit by the U.S., pledging to be home soon.The last call home was on Oct. 12, when Joseph told his wife he’d found a boat to bring him back to Trinidad, and he would be seeing her in a matter of days, according to court documents. Two days later, however, on Oct. 14, the U.S. struck another target — a boat Joseph’s family believes he was in.“Mr. Joseph’s wife repeatedly called Mr. Joseph’s cellphone, but the line was dead,” a lawsuit filed Tuesday against the U.S. government says. “The line remains dead to this day.”Joseph’s family, and the family of another Trinidadian man, 41-year-old Rishi Samaroo, who had been working with Joseph in Venezuela and who is also believed to have been on the boat, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government on Tuesday for wrongful death and extrajudicial killing of the two men. The complaint calls the strikes “unprecedented and manifestly unlawful,” and says they have carried out “premeditated and intentional killings” with no legal justification.CNN asked the Justice Department for comment but did not immediately receive a response before publication. The Defense Department declined to comment on ongoing litigation.The complaint says that, despite claims by President Donald Trump and other administration officials that all the men killed on board were “narcoterrorists,” neither Joseph nor Samaroo had any affiliation to drug cartels.The lawsuit marks the first opportunity for a judge to rule on the legality of the strikes which are part of the Trump administration’s ongoing campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific — dubbed Operation Southern Spear — that has killed at least 117 people. The most recent strike was carried out last week in the eastern Pacific, killing two and leaving one survivor who was being searched for by the Coast Guard.The lawsuit points specifically to the Death on the High Seas Act, which allows family members to sue over wrongful deaths on the high seas, and the Alien Tort Statute, which lets foreign nationals sue in federal courts over violations of international law.The families are suing for compensatory and punitive damages and they are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Jonathan Hafetz with the Seton Hall Law School.The administration has publicly presented little evidence that those killed in the ongoing campaign are affiliates of drug cartels, or that each of the vessels had drugs on them. When pressed by lawmakers during congressional briefings, military officials have acknowledged they do not know the identities of everyone on board the boats they have destroyed.The legality of the strikes has come under intense scrutiny in Congress since the operations began in September, including particular interest in the very first strike, when the military carried out a second strike that killed two survivors of an initial attack. Multiple current and former military lawyers previously told CNN the strikes do not appear lawful.But the administration has maintained that the operation is a necessary step against drugs heading for US shores that will ultimately harm Americans.Trump announced the Oct. 14 strike in a social media post, saying “six male narcoterrorists aboard the vessel were killed” and that intelligence had confirmed the vessel was “trafficking narcotics, was associated with illicit narcoterrorist networks, and was transiting along a known DTO route.”‘They must be held accountable’Similar to Joseph, Samaroo had communicated with his family just days before the Oct. 14 strike. Having served 15 years in prison for “participation in a homicide” in Trinidad, and released early on parole, Samaroo moved to Las Cuevas, Trinidad, and in August 2025 he went to Venezuela to work on a farm, the lawsuit says.He frequently shared photos and videos with his family of his time on the farm, “where he cared for cows and goats and made cheese.” During one video call, he introduced Joseph, a friend from home who he said he was working with in Venezuela.On Oct. 12, Samaroo sent his sister, Sallycar Korasingh, a photo in a lifejacket, telling her he had found a boat to bring him back to Trinidad and he would see her in a few days.“That call was the last time Ms. Korasingh, or anyone else in his family, heard from Mr. Samaroo,” the complaint says.In a statement issued by the ACLU, Korasingh said her brother was a “hardworking man who paid his debt to society and was just trying to get back on his feet again.”“If the US government believed Rishi had done anything wrong, it should have arrested, charged, and detained him,” she said. “Not murdered him. They must be held accountable.”Members of the administration have repeatedly insisted that those killed in the strikes are “narcoterrorists” — in November, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on social media that “every trafficker killed is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.”The lawsuit, however, says neither Joseph nor Samaroo were “members of, or affiliated with, drug cartels.”“The Trinidadian government has publicly stated that ‘the government has no information linking Joseph or Samaroo to illegal activities,’ and that it had ‘no information of the victims of US strikes being in possession of illegal drugs, guns, or small arms,’” the complaint says.The complaint calls into question one of the primary claims made by Trump administration officials throughout the course of the campaign, that the boats — and the drugs allegedly aboard them — were headed for the U.S. and required urgent military action. The lawsuit says, however, that Joseph and Samaroo were headed home to Trinidad on the vessel targeted by the US.In the wake of the first strike in September, Secretary of State Marco Rubio initially said that boat was headed toward Trinidad or elsewhere in the Caribbean.Last year, the Trump administration justified the operation with a classified legal opinion produced by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. The opinion argues that the president is allowed to authorize deadly force against a broad range of cartels because they pose an imminent threat to Americans.The opinion appears to justify an open-ended war against a secret list of groups, legal experts have said, giving the president power to designate drug traffickers as enemy combatants and have them killed without legal review. Historically, those involved in drug trafficking were considered criminals with due process rights, with the Coast Guard interdicting drug-trafficking vessels and arresting smugglers.The lawsuit, however, offers the first opportunity for those who believe the strikes amount to extrajudicial killings to present their case before a judge.“Whatever that secret memorandum states, it cannot render the patently illegal killings lawful,” the court filing says.

    As the U.S. military began launching strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean last year, a young Trinidadian man who was in Venezuela for work was searching for a way home, according to a lawsuit filed on Tuesday.

    Chad Joseph, 26, had been in Venezuela for months fishing and doing farm work when he began looking for a boat to hitch a ride back to Las Cuevas in Trinidad and Tobago, where his wife and three children lived. But as the U.S. began targeting vessels officials said were carrying drugs destined for American streets, Joseph “became increasingly fearful” of making the journey, court documents say. The concerns became so real that in early September, his wife recalled, he called to assure her that he had not been aboard a vessel just hit by the U.S., pledging to be home soon.

    The last call home was on Oct. 12, when Joseph told his wife he’d found a boat to bring him back to Trinidad, and he would be seeing her in a matter of days, according to court documents. Two days later, however, on Oct. 14, the U.S. struck another target — a boat Joseph’s family believes he was in.

    “Mr. Joseph’s wife repeatedly called Mr. Joseph’s cellphone, but the line was dead,” a lawsuit filed Tuesday against the U.S. government says. “The line remains dead to this day.”

    Andrea de Silva/Reuters/File via CNN Newsource

    Messiah Burnley, nephew of Chad Joseph, who was killed in a U.S. military strike on a boat in the Caribbean, carries a girl in front of an altar for Joseph in the family home in Las Cuevas, Trinidad and Tobago, October 22, 2025.

    Joseph’s family, and the family of another Trinidadian man, 41-year-old Rishi Samaroo, who had been working with Joseph in Venezuela and who is also believed to have been on the boat, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government on Tuesday for wrongful death and extrajudicial killing of the two men. The complaint calls the strikes “unprecedented and manifestly unlawful,” and says they have carried out “premeditated and intentional killings” with no legal justification.

    CNN asked the Justice Department for comment but did not immediately receive a response before publication. The Defense Department declined to comment on ongoing litigation.

    The complaint says that, despite claims by President Donald Trump and other administration officials that all the men killed on board were “narcoterrorists,” neither Joseph nor Samaroo had any affiliation to drug cartels.

    The lawsuit marks the first opportunity for a judge to rule on the legality of the strikes which are part of the Trump administration’s ongoing campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific — dubbed Operation Southern Spear — that has killed at least 117 people. The most recent strike was carried out last week in the eastern Pacific, killing two and leaving one survivor who was being searched for by the Coast Guard.

    The lawsuit points specifically to the Death on the High Seas Act, which allows family members to sue over wrongful deaths on the high seas, and the Alien Tort Statute, which lets foreign nationals sue in federal courts over violations of international law.

    The families are suing for compensatory and punitive damages and they are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Jonathan Hafetz with the Seton Hall Law School.

    The administration has publicly presented little evidence that those killed in the ongoing campaign are affiliates of drug cartels, or that each of the vessels had drugs on them. When pressed by lawmakers during congressional briefings, military officials have acknowledged they do not know the identities of everyone on board the boats they have destroyed.

    The legality of the strikes has come under intense scrutiny in Congress since the operations began in September, including particular interest in the very first strike, when the military carried out a second strike that killed two survivors of an initial attack. Multiple current and former military lawyers previously told CNN the strikes do not appear lawful.

    But the administration has maintained that the operation is a necessary step against drugs heading for US shores that will ultimately harm Americans.

    Trump announced the Oct. 14 strike in a social media post, saying “six male narcoterrorists aboard the vessel were killed” and that intelligence had confirmed the vessel was “trafficking narcotics, was associated with illicit narcoterrorist networks, and was transiting along a known DTO route.”

    ‘They must be held accountable’

    Similar to Joseph, Samaroo had communicated with his family just days before the Oct. 14 strike. Having served 15 years in prison for “participation in a homicide” in Trinidad, and released early on parole, Samaroo moved to Las Cuevas, Trinidad, and in August 2025 he went to Venezuela to work on a farm, the lawsuit says.

    He frequently shared photos and videos with his family of his time on the farm, “where he cared for cows and goats and made cheese.” During one video call, he introduced Joseph, a friend from home who he said he was working with in Venezuela.

    On Oct. 12, Samaroo sent his sister, Sallycar Korasingh, a photo in a lifejacket, telling her he had found a boat to bring him back to Trinidad and he would see her in a few days.

    “That call was the last time Ms. Korasingh, or anyone else in his family, heard from Mr. Samaroo,” the complaint says.

    In a statement issued by the ACLU, Korasingh said her brother was a “hardworking man who paid his debt to society and was just trying to get back on his feet again.”

    “If the US government believed Rishi had done anything wrong, it should have arrested, charged, and detained him,” she said. “Not murdered him. They must be held accountable.”

    Members of the administration have repeatedly insisted that those killed in the strikes are “narcoterrorists” — in November, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on social media that “every trafficker killed is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.”

    The lawsuit, however, says neither Joseph nor Samaroo were “members of, or affiliated with, drug cartels.”

    “The Trinidadian government has publicly stated that ‘the government has no information linking Joseph or Samaroo to illegal activities,’ and that it had ‘no information of the victims of US strikes being in possession of illegal drugs, guns, or small arms,’” the complaint says.

    The complaint calls into question one of the primary claims made by Trump administration officials throughout the course of the campaign, that the boats — and the drugs allegedly aboard them — were headed for the U.S. and required urgent military action. The lawsuit says, however, that Joseph and Samaroo were headed home to Trinidad on the vessel targeted by the US.

    In the wake of the first strike in September, Secretary of State Marco Rubio initially said that boat was headed toward Trinidad or elsewhere in the Caribbean.

    Last year, the Trump administration justified the operation with a classified legal opinion produced by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. The opinion argues that the president is allowed to authorize deadly force against a broad range of cartels because they pose an imminent threat to Americans.

    The opinion appears to justify an open-ended war against a secret list of groups, legal experts have said, giving the president power to designate drug traffickers as enemy combatants and have them killed without legal review. Historically, those involved in drug trafficking were considered criminals with due process rights, with the Coast Guard interdicting drug-trafficking vessels and arresting smugglers.

    The lawsuit, however, offers the first opportunity for those who believe the strikes amount to extrajudicial killings to present their case before a judge.

    “Whatever that secret memorandum states, it cannot render the patently illegal killings lawful,” the court filing says.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge set to hear arguments on Minnesota’s immigration crackdown after fatal shootings

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge will hear arguments Monday on whether she should at least temporarily halt the immigration crackdown in Minnesota that has led to the fatal shootings of two people by government officers.The state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul sued the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month, five days after Renee Good was shot by an Immigration and Customs officer. Saturday’s shooting by a Border Patrol officer of Alex Pretti has only added urgency to the case.Since the original filing, the state and cities have substantially added to their original request. They’re trying to restore the state of affairs that existed before the Trump administration launched Operation Metro Surge on Dec. 1.The hearing is set for Monday morning in federal court in Minneapolis. Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said he plans to personally attend.They’re asking that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Menendez order federal law enforcement agencies to reduce the numbers of officers and agents in Minnesota to levels before the surge, while allowing them to continue to enforce immigration laws within a long list of proposed limits.Justice Department attorneys have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous” and said “Minnesota wants a veto over federal law enforcement.” They asked the judge to reject the request or at least stay her order pending an anticipated appeal.Ellison said at a news conference Sunday that he and the cities filed their lawsuit because of “the unprecedented nature of this surge. It is a novel abuse of the Constitution that we’re looking at right now. No one can remember a time when we’ve seen something like this.”It wasn’t clear ahead of the hearing when the judge might rule.The case also has implications for other states that have been or could be targets of intensive federal immigration enforcement operations. Attorneys general from 19 states plus the District of Columbia, led by California, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Minnesota.”If left unchecked, the federal government will no doubt be emboldened to continue its unlawful conduct in Minnesota and to repeat it elsewhere,” the attorneys general wrote.Menendez is the same judge who ruled in a separate case on Jan. 16 that federal officers in Minnesota can’t detain or tear gas peaceful protesters who aren’t obstructing authorities, including people who are following and observing agents.An appeals court temporarily suspended that ruling three days before Saturday’s shooting. But the plaintiffs in that case, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, asked the appeals court late Saturday for an emergency order lifting the stay in light of Pretti’s killing. The Justice Department argued in a reply filed Sunday that the stay should remain in place, calling the injunction unworkable and overly broad.In yet another case, a different federal judge, Eric Tostrud, late Saturday issued an order blocking the Trump administration from “destroying or altering evidence” related to Saturday’s shooting. Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty asked for the order to try to preserve evidence collected by federal officials that state authorities have not yet been able to inspect. A hearing in that case is scheduled for Monday afternoon in federal court in St. Paul.“The fact that anyone would ever think that an agent of the federal government might even think about doing such a thing was completely unforeseeable only a few weeks ago,” Ellison told reporters. “But now, this is what we have to do.”

    MINNEAPOLIS —

    A federal judge will hear arguments Monday on whether she should at least temporarily halt the immigration crackdown in Minnesota that has led to the fatal shootings of two people by government officers.

    The state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul sued the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month, five days after Renee Good was shot by an Immigration and Customs officer. Saturday’s shooting by a Border Patrol officer of Alex Pretti has only added urgency to the case.

    Since the original filing, the state and cities have substantially added to their original request. They’re trying to restore the state of affairs that existed before the Trump administration launched Operation Metro Surge on Dec. 1.

    The hearing is set for Monday morning in federal court in Minneapolis. Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said he plans to personally attend.

    They’re asking that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Menendez order federal law enforcement agencies to reduce the numbers of officers and agents in Minnesota to levels before the surge, while allowing them to continue to enforce immigration laws within a long list of proposed limits.

    Justice Department attorneys have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous” and said “Minnesota wants a veto over federal law enforcement.” They asked the judge to reject the request or at least stay her order pending an anticipated appeal.

    Ellison said at a news conference Sunday that he and the cities filed their lawsuit because of “the unprecedented nature of this surge. It is a novel abuse of the Constitution that we’re looking at right now. No one can remember a time when we’ve seen something like this.”

    It wasn’t clear ahead of the hearing when the judge might rule.

    The case also has implications for other states that have been or could be targets of intensive federal immigration enforcement operations. Attorneys general from 19 states plus the District of Columbia, led by California, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Minnesota.

    “If left unchecked, the federal government will no doubt be emboldened to continue its unlawful conduct in Minnesota and to repeat it elsewhere,” the attorneys general wrote.

    Menendez is the same judge who ruled in a separate case on Jan. 16 that federal officers in Minnesota can’t detain or tear gas peaceful protesters who aren’t obstructing authorities, including people who are following and observing agents.

    An appeals court temporarily suspended that ruling three days before Saturday’s shooting. But the plaintiffs in that case, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, asked the appeals court late Saturday for an emergency order lifting the stay in light of Pretti’s killing. The Justice Department argued in a reply filed Sunday that the stay should remain in place, calling the injunction unworkable and overly broad.

    In yet another case, a different federal judge, Eric Tostrud, late Saturday issued an order blocking the Trump administration from “destroying or altering evidence” related to Saturday’s shooting. Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty asked for the order to try to preserve evidence collected by federal officials that state authorities have not yet been able to inspect. A hearing in that case is scheduled for Monday afternoon in federal court in St. Paul.

    “The fact that anyone would ever think that an agent of the federal government might even think about doing such a thing was completely unforeseeable only a few weeks ago,” Ellison told reporters. “But now, this is what we have to do.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Littleton Public Schools to pay $3.85 million to families of kids abused on bus rides

    [ad_1]

    Littleton Public Schools agreed Thursday to pay $3.85 million to the families of three children who are autistic and were abused by a school bus monitor.

    The school board voted unanimously to approve the settlement Thursday, slightly more than two weeks after former bus monitor Kiarra Jones pleaded guilty to abusing the three boys while they were riding the bus to and from The Joshua School, a private school in Englewood.

    Littleton Public Schools was contracted to bus the students, who are nonverbal and autistic, to and from school each day. Jones abused the boys on their bus rides for about six months, between September 2023 and March 2024, before authorities discovered surveillance video that showed the woman elbowing, stomping and punching the students.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prince Harry says U.K. tabloid court battle is

    [ad_1]

    Prince Harry struck a combative tone as he testified Wednesday in his lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mail and insisted that his latest legal battle with Associated Newspaper Ltd. was “in the public interest.” 

    Harry and six other prominent figures, including Elton John and actor Elizabeth Hurley, allege that the publisher invaded their privacy by engaging in a “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering” for two decades, attorney David Sherborne said. The celebrities allege that the company illegally spied on them by hiring private investigators to hack their phones, bug their cars and access private records. Testimony from several private investigators, who have said they worked on behalf of Associated Newspapers, is set to be used in the trial.

    Associated Newspapers Ltd. has denied the allegations, called them preposterous and said the roughly 50 articles in question were reported with legitimate sources that included close associates willing to inform on their famous friends. 

    Harry said in his 23-page witness statement that he was distressed and disturbed by the intrusion into his early life by the Mail and its sister publication the Mail on Sunday, and that it made him “paranoid beyond belief.” Harry also alleged that the lives of “thousands of people” were “invaded” by Associated “because of greed.” 

    “There is obviously a personal element to bringing this claim, motivated by truth, justice and accountability, but it is not just about me,” Harry said in a written statement unveiled as he entered the witness box. Under the English civil court system, witnesses present written testimony, and after asserting that it’s the truth are immediately put under cross examination. “I am determined to hold Associated accountable, for everyone’s sake … I believe it is in the public interest.” 

    Britain’s Prince Harry gives evidence in his privacy lawsuit against the publisher of The Daily Mail, at the High Court in London, January 21, 2026, in this courtroom sketch.

    Julia Quenzler / REUTERS


    A heated cross examination  

    Harry, dressed in a dark suit, held a small Bible in his right hand in London’s High Court and swore to “almighty God that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” After the Duke of Sussex said he preferred to be called Prince Harry, he acknowledged that his 23-page statement was authentic and accurate.

    Defense lawyer Antony White, in a calm and gentle tone, began to put questions to Harry to determine if the sourcing of the articles, in fact, had come from royal correspondents working their sources at official events or from friends or associates of the prince. Harry said that his “social circles were not leaky” and disputed suggestions that he had been cozy with journalists who covered the royal family. 

    Harry suggested that information had come from eavesdropping on his phone calls or having private investigators snoop on him. He said journalist Katie Nicholl had the luxury to use the term “unidentified source” deceptively to hide unlawful measures of investigation.

    “If you complain, they double down on you in my experience,” he said in explaining why he had not objected to the articles at the time.

    As a soft-spoken Harry became increasingly defensive, White said: “I am intent on you not having a bad experience with me, but it is my job to ask you these questions.” 

    Eventually, Justice Matthew Nicklin intervened in the tense back-and-forth and told Harry not to argue with the defense lawyer as he tried to explain what it’s like living under what he called “24-hour surveillance.” Nicklin also reminded Harry that he does not “have to bear the burden of arguing the case today.” 

    At another point in his cross examination, Harry appeared close to tears as he said tabloids had made his wife Meghan’s life “an absolute misery.” Harry has previously said persistent press attacks led to the couple’s decision to leave royal life and move to the U.S. in 2020. 

    Harry’s media crusade 

    For decades, Harry has had what he called an “uneasy” relationship with the media, but kept mum and followed the family protocol of “never complain, never explain,” he said.

    The litigation is part of Harry’s self-proclaimed mission to reform the media that he blames for the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a car crash in 1997 while being pursued by paparazzi in Paris. 

    He said “vicious persistent attacks,” harassment and event racists articles about Meghan, who is biracial, had inspired him to break from family tradition to finally sue the press. 

    Britain Prince Harry

    Britain’s Prince Harry arrives at London’s High Court in London on Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2026.

    Kirsty Wigglesworth / AP


    It is Harry’s second time testifying after he bucked House of Windsor tradition and became the first senior royal to testify in a court in well over a century when he took the stand in a similar, successful lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mirror in 2023. 

    Last year, on the eve of another scheduled trial, Rupert Murdoch’s U.K. tabloid publisher NGN agreed to pay Harry “substantial damages” for privacy breaches, including phone hacking.

    This trial is expected to last nine weeks and a written verdict could come months later.  

    “If Harry wins this case, it will give him a feeling … that he wasn’t being paranoid all the time,” Royah Nikkhah, royal editor for The Sunday Times and a CBS News contributor, told CBS News on Monday. “If Harry loses this case, it’s huge jeopardy for him, not just in terms of cost, but in terms of pushing all the way to trial and not seeking to settle. So we have to wait and see, but it’s high stakes for Harry.” 

    AFP

    contributed to this report.

    In:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prince Harry returns to U.K. to be in court for case accusing tabloids of illegal snooping

    [ad_1]

    London — Prince Harry was back in London on Monday, sitting in the U.K.’s highest court to take part in the third and final of his outstanding legal battles against Britain’s tabloid newspapers. 

    Harry is among the high-profile claimants, along with Sir Elton John and actresses Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, who have accused the Associated Newspapers group of “unlawful information gathering.”

    The 41-year-old royal, who lives in California, and his fellow celebrities claim the company, which publishes the Daily Mail and the linked MailOnline website, illegally snooped on them by hiring private investigators to hack their phones, bug their cars and access private records to generate scoops.

    The publisher has denied all of the accusations, calling them “preposterous smears” and part of a coordinated effort driven by the claimants’ personal dislike of the news media.

    In a witness submission seen by CBS News, Harry said it was, “disturbing to feel that my every move, thought or feeling was being tracked and monitored just for the Mail to make money out of it,” adding that the “terrifying” intrusion made him, “paranoid beyond belief, isolating me.”

    Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, arrives at The Royal Courts of Justice for the first day of a court case against Associated Newspapers Ltd, Jan. 19, 2026, in London, England. 

    Karwai Tang/WireImage/Getty


    Harry, the Duke of Sussex, whose case is based on 14 separate newspaper stories, says the alleged illegal information gathering between 1993 and 2011 put a “massive strain” on his personal relationships. He has long blamed the media for the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a car crash in 1997 as her vehicle was pursued by photographers on motorcycles.

    He listened in court Monday as his lawyer argued that there was, “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering at both the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday.”

    Testimony from several private investigators, who have said they worked on behalf of Associated Newspapers, will be used in the trial. CBS News’ partner network BBC news reported Monday that Harry was expected to take the stand himself to offer evidence. 

    During his first legal battle with the press, in 2019, against the owners of The Mirror for hacking his phone, Harry became the first senior member of the royal family to give in-person testimony in a British court in more than 130 years. Courts ruled in his favor multiple times in that case.

    “The journalists who used me and the editors who sanctioned this knew full well that I was a practitioner of the ‘Dark Arts,’” private investigator Steve Whittamore said in a witness statement ahead of the trial that began Monday. “If the information the journalists requested could have been acquired legitimately … then the newspapers would have had no need to use my particular services.”

    Another witness, known as “Detective Danno,” claims to have been paid the equivalent of more than $1 million by the Mail for over 20 years of work for the paper. 

    The publisher has argued that evidence from private detectives can’t be trusted.

    Royah Nikkhah, royal editor for The Sunday Times and a CBS News contributor, said Monday that Prince William appeared to be “full of confidence” about his case, but “he’s not really relishing the prospect of being in court all week.”

    Last year, Rupert Murdoch’s right-leaning News Group Newspapers settled out of court with the royal, offering a full formal apology for “serious intrusion” and a multi-million dollar payout.

    The case against Associated Newspapers is expected to last nine weeks, culminating with a decision by Judge Matthew Nicklin, whose verdict will determine not only the lasting reputation of a major media company, but also who foots the bill for tens of millions of dollars in legal costs. 

    “If Harry wins this case, it will give him a feeling … that he wasn’t being paranoid all the time,” Nikkhah told CBS News. “If Harry loses this case, it’s huge jeopardy for him, not just in terms of cost, but in terms of pushing all the way to trial and not seeking to settle. So we have to wait and see, but it’s high stakes for Harry.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Edison sues L.A. County and other agencies, saying they share blame for Eaton fire deaths, destruction

    [ad_1]

    Southern California Edison sued Los Angeles County, water agencies and two companies including SoCalGas Friday, saying their mistakes contributed to the deadly and destructive toll of last year’s Eaton wildfire.

    Edison now faces hundreds of lawsuits by victims of the fire, which claim its transmission line started the devastating fire that killed at least 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes in Altadena. The cost of settling those lawsuits could be many billions of dollars.

    Doug Dixon, an attorney who represents Edison in the fire litigation, told the Times that Edison filed the lawsuits “to ensure that all those who bear responsibility are at the table in this legal process.”

    The utility’s two legal filings in L.A. County Superior Court paint a picture of sweeping mismanagement of the emergency response on the night of the fire.

    Edison blames the county fire department, sheriff’s department and office of emergency management for their failure to warn Altadena residents west of Lake Avenue to evacuate.

    The Times revealed last January that west Altadena never received evacuation warnings, and orders to evacuate came hours after flames and smoke threatened the community. All but one of the 19 who died in the Eaton fire were found in west Altadena.

    Edison also sued L.A. County for failing to send fire trucks to the community. A Times investigation found that during a critical moment in the fire, only one county fire truck was west of Lake Avenue.

    The electric company also filed suit against six water agencies, including Pasadena Water & Power, claiming there were insufficient water supplies available for firefighters.

    “Compounding the unfolding disaster, the water systems servicing the areas impacted by the Eaton Fire failed as the fire spread, leaving firefighters and residents with no water to fight the fire,” the lawsuit states.

    Another lawsuit aims at SoCalGas. Edison says the company failed to turn off gas lines after the fire started, making the disaster worse.

    “SoCalGas did not begin widespread shutoffs for four days—until January 11, 2025—in the area affected by the Eaton Fire,” the complaint states. “In the meantime, the Eaton Fire continued to spread fueled by natural gas.”

    “ The risks and deficiencies with SoCalGas’s system that led to it spreading the fire were long known to SoCalGas, and yet it nevertheless failed to adequately account for them in designing, building, and maintaining its system,” the complaint said. “The result was catastrophic.”

    Edison also sued Genasys, a company that provides the county with emergency alert software.

    In addition, the utility sued the county for failing to remove brush, which it claims made the fire hotter and spread faster, causing more damage.

    In March, L.A. County filed suit against Edison, claiming that its transmission line sparked the blaze, requiring the county to incur tens of millions of dollars responding to the fire and its aftermath. The county is seeking compensation for destroyed infrastructure and parks, as well as for cleanup and recovery efforts, lost taxes and overtime for county workers.

    Edison’s new cross claims will be heard in the consolidated Eaton fire case in Superior Court, which is also handling the lawsuit that the county and other public agencies have filed against the electric utility.

    Officials from the county and water agencies, as well as from the two companies, could not be immediately reached.

    The water agencies that Edison sued also include the Sierra Madre City Water Dept., Kinneloa Irrigation District, Rubio Canyon Land & Water Association, Las Flores Water Company and Lincoln Avenue Water Company.

    The government investigation into the fire, which is being handled jointly by L.A. County Fire and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, has not yet been released.

    Edison has said that a leading theory is that its unused, century-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon somehow became re-energized on the night of Jan. 7, 2025 and sparked the blaze.

    The fire roared through Altadena, burning 14,021 acres and destroying more than 9,400 homes and other structures.

    [ad_2]

    Melody Petersen

    Source link

  • Supreme Court may block thousands of lawsuits over Monsanto’s weed killer

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court announced Friday it will hear Monsanto’s claim that it should be shielded from tens of thousands of lawsuits over its weed killer Roundup because the Environmental Protection Agency has not required a warning label that it may cause cancer.

    The justices will not resolve the decades-long dispute over whether Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate, causes cancer.

    Some studies have found it is a likely carcinogen, and others concluded it does not pose a true cancer risk for humans.

    However, the court may free Monsanto and Bayer, its parent company, from legal claims from more than 100,000 plaintiffs who sued over their cancer diagnosis.

    The legal dispute involves whether the federal regulatory laws shield the company from being sued under state law for failing to warn consumers.

    In product liability suits, plaintiffs typically seek to hold product makers responsible for failing to warn them of a known danger.

    John Durnell, a Missouri man, said he sprayed Roundup for years to control weeds without gloves or a mask, believing it was safe. He sued after he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

    In 2023, a jury rejected his claim the product was defective but it ruled for him on his “strict liability failure to warn claim,” a state court concluded. He was awarded $1.25 million in damages.

    Monsanto appealed, arguing this state law verdict is in conflict with federal law regulating pesticides.

    “EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, does not cause cancer. EPA has consistently reached that conclusion after studying the extensive body of science on glyphosate for over five decades,” the company told the court in its appeal.

    They said the EPA not only refused to add a cancer warning label to products with Roundup, but said it would be “misbranded” with such a warning.

    Nonetheless, the “premise of this lawsuit, and the thousands like it, is that Missouri law requires Monsanto to include the precise warning that EPA rejects,” they said.

    On Friday, the court said in a brief order that it would decide “whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.”

    The court is likely to hear arguments in the case of Monsanto vs. Durnell in April and issue a ruling by late June.

    Monsanto says it has removed Roundup from its consumer products, but it is still used for farms.

    Last month, Trump administration lawyers urged the court to hear the case.

    They said the EPA has “has approved hundreds of labels for Roundup and other glyphosate-based products without requiring a cancer warning,” yet state courts are upholding lawsuits based on a failure to warn.

    Environmentalists said the court should not step in to shield makers of dangerous products.

    Lawyers for EarthJustice said the court “could let pesticide companies off the hook — even when their products make people sick.”

    “When people use pesticides in their fields or on their lawns, they don’t expect to get cancer,” said Patti Goldman, a senior attorney. “Yet this happens, and when it does, state court lawsuits provide the only real path to accountability.”

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Michigan lawsuit over COVID risks for disaster cleanup workers ends in settlement – Detroit Metro Times

    [ad_1]

    A lawsuit alleging that disaster-recovery workers were put in unsafe, overcrowded conditions during early pandemic cleanup work in mid-Michigan has been resolved through a confidential settlement, the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice announced this week.

    The case was filed in the 42nd Circuit Court in Midland County and named a SERVPRO franchise and several contractors and subcontractors involved in flood-recovery work after the May 2020 dam failures and flooding in the Midland area.

    According to the lawsuit, more than 100 workers were recruited from out of state to perform cleanup and remediation work at multiple sites, including MidMichigan Medical Center, as well as locations in or near Midland such as Currie Golf Course, the Herbert D. Doan Midland County History Center, and Northwood University.

    The workers alleged they were housed four to a hotel room with two people sharing a bed, transported in crowded vans, and required to gather indoors for daily briefings in conditions that did not allow social distancing.

    The complaint also alleged the defendants failed to implement basic COVID-era safeguards, including a proper preparedness plan, training, screening protocols, adequate protective equipment, sanitation measures, and procedures for responding to confirmed infections.

    As workers began experiencing symptoms and some tested positive, the complaint alleged that public health officials advised the workers to remain in Michigan to isolate or quarantine, but that key guidance was not properly communicated and workers were later terminated and sent back out of state.

    The lawsuit alleged workers contracted COVID-19 and that some became severely ill, including hospitalizations requiring ventilator support.

    John Philo, executive director of the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, said the lawsuit settlement sends a message that worker safety must be safeguarded. 

    “This outcome represents a major step forward for resilience workers, who are often placed in hazardous environments with limited power to speak up,” Philo said. “It affirms that companies responding to disasters must prioritize worker safety, especially during public-health emergencies.”

    The complaint described multiple legal claims, including negligence and alleged violations of wage and sick-leave protections, along with other state and federal claims.

    The Sugar Law Center said the agreement resolves allegations that workers were denied proper protections while performing essential disaster-recovery work in the early, pre-vaccine phase of the pandemic. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

    Saket Soni, executive director of Resilience Force, one of the organizations representing the workers, said the lawsuit was about standing up for workers. 

     “We hope this outcome drives meaningful industry-wide change to protect disaster-recovery workers in future emergencies,” Soni said. “This case was about upholding the right of all workers to health and safety at work, even during a pandemic, and we believe that its resolution confirms that right for everyone in our state.”

    Named defendants in the case included SERVPRO Industries LLC; BTN Services LLC; BTN owner and supervisor Alejandro Fernandez; Favreau, Wallace, Rush, Schmidt, Inc.; RDM Holding Co.; and RACM, L.L.C.


    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Ashley St. Clair Sues Elon Musk’s xAI, Alleging His Company Uses “AI to Undress, Humiliate, and Sexually Exploit Victims”

    [ad_1]

    On Thursday afternoon, Ashley St. Clair, the mother of one of Elon Musk’s 14 publicly known children, filed a lawsuit in New York against his company xAI, claiming that Grok, the company’s AI chatbot, produced sexually explicit images of her at users’ request. The writer and political strategist has been locked in a flurry of back-and-forth legal disputes with Musk since last February, when she announced publicly that she had given birth to his son Romulus in September 2024.

    St. Clair alleges that X users found photos of her as a 14-year-old and requested that Grok undress her and put her in a bikini, as well as generate a variety of graphic deepfake content that included images of her “kneeling on the floor in a sex pose” and sporting a tattoo that read “Elon’s whore.”

    “In one image, St. Clair, who is Jewish, is stripped and put in a string bikini covered with swastikas,” the complaint reads. She further alleges that the platform not only kept some of the explicit images online for more than seven days, but also removed St. Clair’s premium subscription following her complaints.

    In a preemptive defensive lawsuit filed the same afternoon, xAI sued St. Clair, alleging that when she created an account on the X platform she agreed to terms of service that require any litigation involving the company take place in state or federal courts in Texas.

    St. Clair is being represented in her suit by lawyer Carrie Goldberg, who has said she specializes in defending victims of “pervs, assholes, psychos, and trolls,” and has represented clients against Harvey Weinstein. In recent years, her work has increasingly focused on holding Big Tech companies liable for harms that occur on their online platforms, including stalking, trafficking, sextortion, and the dissemination of child sex-abuse material.

    In this photo illustration, a iPhone screen displaying the Grok app and logo is seen on January 7, 2026

    Anna Barclay/Getty Images

    In response to xAI’s suit, Goldberg told Vanity Fair, “We are appalled that xAI filed a bonkers lawsuit against [St. Clair] for providing the obligatory notice to them that she was seeking a Temporary Restraining Order.” She added, “We intend to hold Grok accountable and to help establish clear legal boundaries for the entire public’s benefit to prevent AI from being weaponized for abuse.”

    These suits land amid a global regulatory crisis surrounding the rapidly developing capabilities of AI models, which have so far been allowed to progress largely without legal guardrails. Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment. When reached for comment, xAI’s auto responder replied, “Legacy Media Lies.”

    [ad_2]

    Julia Black

    Source link

  • Tarrant County approves additional $60,000 for defense attorneys in jail death

    [ad_1]

    The voting board at the Tarrant County Commissioners Court at the Tarrant County Administration Building in Fort Worth on Tuesday, May 6, 2025.

    The voting board at the Tarrant County Commissioners Court at the Tarrant County Administration Building in Fort Worth on Tuesday, May 6, 2025.


    Chris Torres

    ctorres@star-telegram.com

    Two outside legal counsels were contracted by Tarrant County Commissioners for two sheriff’s employees who were involved in the death of jail inmate Anthony Johnson Jr.

    The Tarrant County medical examiner’s office determined Johnson’s death was a homicide by asphyxiation.

    Johnson died on April 21, 2024 while in custody of the Tarrant County jail after being arrested within 48 hours prior, while enduring what his family says was a schizophrenic episode.

    A previous Star-Telegram article reported Johnson resisted jailers during a cell check and was pepper-sprayed before being handcuffed and held on the floor improperly with a detention officer’s knee on his back, according to partial video of the altercation released by the Sheriff’s Office.

    Sheriff’s employees Royce Moody and Kimberly Nobles are named defendants in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas by Johnson’s family. Two other sheriff’s employees have been indicted on murder charges.

    Tarrant County Commissioners approved two contracts for legal counsel not to exceed $30,000 in order to continue using attorneys Darrell Noga and Thomas Brandt in the defense of Moody and Nobles. Both attorneys now work for different law firms when they were first procured for the case but have since moved to other firms.

    Noga has been paid $21,161.16 and Brandt has been paid $28,919.75 so far for their representation of the two sheriff’s employees. Both now have a renewed contract not to exceed $30,000 as of the 3-2 approval along party lines given by county commissioners Tuesday.

    The county is statutorily obligated to pay for the representation of Moody and Nobles, but many of the residents who spoke at the commissioners court meeting asked the county to settle the case so the Johnson family may find peace.

    “At some point, an elected official has to take a stand instead of hiding behind legal obligations and pretending their hands are tied,” Jacqueline Johnson, the victim’s mother, said to the commissioners on Tuesday. “This trial is being pushed closer to election season, and everyone can see the timing. There is a video that shows exactly what happened. There is no reason this should take years, unless the goal is delay, protection and political convenience.”

    Related Stories from Fort Worth Star-Telegram

    Rachel Royster

    Fort Worth Star-Telegram

    Rachel Royster is a news and government reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, specifically focused on Tarrant County. She joined the newsroom after interning at the Austin American-Statesman, the Waco Tribune-Herald and Capital Community News in DC. A Houston native and Baylor grad, Rachel enjoys traveling, reading and being outside. She welcomes any and all news tips to her email.

    [ad_2]

    Rachel Royster

    Source link

  • Lawsuits against ICE agents would be allowed under proposed California law

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO — A week after a Minnesota woman was fatally shot by a federal immigration officer, California legislators moved forward a bill that would make it easier for people to sue federal agents if they believe their constitutional rights were violated.

    A Senate committee passed Senate Bill 747 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), which would provide Californians with a stronger ability to take legal action against federal law enforcement agents over excessive use of force, unlawful home searches, interfering with a right to protest and other violations.

    California law already allows such suits against state and local law enforcement officials.

    Successful civil suits against federal officers over constitutional rights are less common.

    Wiener, appearing before Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, said his bill has taken on new urgency in the wake of the death of Renee Nicole Good in Minnesota, the 37-year-old mother of three who was shot while driving on a snowy Minneapolis street.

    Good was shot by an agent in self-defense, said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who alleged that Good tried to use her car as a weapon to run over the immigration officer.

    Good’s death outraged Democratic leaders across the country, who accuse federal officers of flouting laws in their efforts to deport thousands of undocumented immigrants. In New York, legislators are proposing legislation similar to the one proposed by Wiener that would allow state-level civil actions against federal officers.

    George Retes Jr., a U.S. citizen and Army veteran who was kept in federal custody for three days in July, described his ordeal at Tuesday’s committee hearing, and how immigration officers swarmed him during a raid in Camarillo.

    Retes, a contracted security guard at the farm that was raided, said he was brought to Port Hueneme Naval Base. Officials swabbed his cheek to obtain DNA, and then moved him to Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles. He was not allowed to make a phone call or see an attorney, he said.

    “I did not resist, I did not impede or assault any agent,” Retes said.”What happened to me that day was not a misunderstanding. It was a violation of the Constitution by the very people sworn to uphold it.”

    He also accused Department of Homeland security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin of spreading false information about him to justify his detention. DHS said in a statement last year that Retes impeded their operation, which he denies.

    Retes has filed a tort claim against the U.S. government, a process that is rarely successful, said his attorney, Anya Bidwell.

    Lawsuits can also be brought through the Bivens doctrine, which refers to the 1971 Supreme Court ruling Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Agents that established that federal officials can be sued for monetary damages for constitutional violations. But in recent decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly restricted the ability to sue under Bivens.

    Wiener’s bill, if passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, would be retroactive to March 2025.

    “We’ve had enough of this terror campaign in our communities by ICE,” said Wiener at a news conference before the hearing. “We need the rule of law and we need accountability.”

    Weiner is running for the congressional seat held by former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).

    Representatives for law enforcement agencies appeared at Tuesday’s hearing to ask for amendments to ensure that the bill wouldn’t lead to weakened protections for state and local officials.

    “We’re not opposed to the intent of the bill. We’re just concerned about the future and the unintended consequences for your California employees,” said David Mastagni, speaking on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, which represents more than 85,000 public safety members.

    Wiener’s bill is the latest effort by the state Legislature to challenge President Trump’s immigration raids. Newsom last year signed legislation authored by Wiener that prohibits law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks, with some exceptions.

    The U.S. Department of Justice sued last year to block the law, and a hearing in the case is scheduled for Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Dakota Smith

    Source link

  • 1/12: CBS Evening News

    [ad_1]


    1/12: CBS Evening News – CBS News









































    Watch CBS News



    Lawmakers warn Fed’s independence at stake amid Powell investigation; Minnesota suing Homeland Security over ICE operations.

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • California sues Trump administration over ‘baseless and cruel’ freezing of child-care funds

    [ad_1]

    California is suing the Trump administration over its “baseless and cruel” decision to freeze $10 billion in federal funding for child care and family assistance allocated to California and four other Democratic-led states, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Thursday.

    The lawsuit was filed jointly by the five states targeted by the freeze — California, New York, Minnesota, Illinois and Colorado — over the Trump administration’s allegations of widespread fraud within their welfare systems. California alone is facing a loss of about $5 billion in funding, including $1.4 billion for child-care programs.

    The lawsuit alleges that the freeze is based on unfounded claims of fraud and infringes on Congress’ spending power as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    “This is just the latest example of Trump’s willingness to throw vulnerable children, vulnerable families and seniors under the bus if he thinks it will advance his vendetta against California and Democratic-led states,” Bonta said at a Thursday evening news conference.

    The $10-billion funding freeze follows the administration’s decision to freeze $185 million in child-care funds to Minnesota, where federal officials allege that as much as half of the roughly $18 billion paid to 14 state-run programs since 2018 may have been fraudulent. Amid the fallout, Gov. Tim Walz has ordered a third-party audit and announced that he will not seek a third term.

    Bonta said that letters sent by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announcing the freeze Tuesday provided no evidence to back up claims of widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars in California. The freeze applies to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Social Services Block Grant program and the Child Care and Development Fund.

    “This is funding that California parents count on to get the safe and reliable child care they need so that they can go to work and provide for their families,” he said. “It’s funding that helps families on the brink of homelessness keep roofs over their heads.”

    Bonta also raised concerns regarding Health and Human Services’ request that California turn over all documents associated with the state’s implementation of the three programs. This requires the state to share personally identifiable information about program participants, a move Bonta called “deeply concerning and also deeply questionable.”

    “The administration doesn’t have the authority to override the established, lawful process our states have already gone through to submit plans and receive approval for these funds,” Bonta said. “It doesn’t have the authority to override the U.S. Constitution and trample Congress’ power of the purse.”

    The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan and marked the 53rd suit California had filed against the Trump administration since the president’s inauguration last January. It asks the court to block the funding freeze and the administration’s sweeping demands for documents and data.

    [ad_2]

    Clara Harter

    Source link

  • Appeals court upholds ruling preventing NIH from cutting millions from NC

    [ad_1]

    A federal appeals court upheld an injunction Monday that prevents the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from making cuts that would’ve translated to hundreds of millions of dollars in lost grant money for North Carolina.

    21 other states joined the State Department of Justice in suing the Trump Administration to block the cuts from taking effect. 

    The Triangle would’ve been North Carolina’s hardest hit region. The grant money impacts medical and public health research conducted at schools like NC State University, the University of North Carolina and Duke University. An analysis found the cuts would’ve cost the region $1.2 billion in direct funding and indirect economic impact. 

    “This was a big win for the state,” Attorney General Jeff Jackson (D-North Carolina) said in an interview with WRAL. “This would have really impacted treatment of patients, but also clinical tests and a lot of medical research. Now, fortunately, that’s not going to happen.” 

    Jackson argued that if the cuts went through, medical research projects wouldn’t have been able to continue. That could’ve led to thousands of job cuts across the region. 

    The Trump Administration announced a plan for a 15% cut to NIH grant funding in February 2025, shortly after President Donald Trump returned to office as he kick-started efforts to try shrinking the size of the federal government. 

    In August, a Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson sent WRAL a statement justifying the cuts: 

    “NIH is committed to restoring the agency to its tradition of gold-standard, evidence-based science. For too long, resources have drifted toward projects with limited relevance to the health challenges facing Americans. NIH remains committed to research that is free from ideology and bias — science that is exploratory, rigorous, and focused on improving health outcomes. It is a deliberate course correction to strengthen accountability and ensure NIH funds research that delivers measurable impact for all Americans.” 

    This is the latest legal battle putting the NC Dept. of Justice at odds with the White House. Jackson has filed many lawsuits over the past year. >>Triangle at the epicenter of proposed cuts to federal funding for medical research

    >>Triangle at the epicenter of proposed cuts to federal funding for medical research

    [ad_2]

    Source link