ReportWire

Tag: Lawsuits

  • Kentucky lawsuit says Roblox fails to protect children on its online gaming platform

    [ad_1]

    FRANKFORT, Ky. — FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — Kentucky’s attorney general claimed Tuesday that the online gaming platform Roblox has become a “playground for predators” as he announced a lawsuit accusing the company of lax child safety measures.

    The Kentucky suit, filed by his office Monday in a state court, is the latest action alleging that the wildly popular site isn’t doing enough to protect children on its gaming services.

    To bolster safeguards for children and teenagers flocking to the site, the company needs to install effective age verifications and content filters, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman said. Added parental notifications also are needed, he said.

    Courtney Norris, a Kentucky mother of three who joined Coleman at a news conference, said she mistakenly viewed Roblox as a safe online gaming choice for her children.

    “I came to realize, later than I would like to admit, that it actually is the ‘Wild West’ of the internet, targeted at children,” she said.

    The company is facing a growing backlash. The Kentucky suit comes after Louisiana sued the company in August. A suit was filed in Iowa after a 13-year-old girl was allegedly introduced to an adult predator on the platform, then kidnapped and trafficked across multiple states and raped.

    Roblox on Tuesday pushed back against the allegations.

    “We have rigorous safety measures in place from advanced AI models to an expertly trained team of thousands moderating our platform 24/7 for inappropriate content,” the company said in a statement. “No system is perfect and our work on safety is never done. We are constantly innovating our safety systems, including adding 100 new safeguards, such as facial age estimation, this year alone.”

    Roblox says it has 111 million daily active users. The company said in an email Tuesday that it implements strict safety defaults for its youngest users. It said the platform’s users under 13 cannot directly message others on Roblox, outside of games or experiences, and cannot directly message others during games or experiences unless the default setting is changed using parental controls.

    The company said it has rigorous text chat filters to block inappropriate words and phrases, attempts to direct under-13 users off the platform and the sharing of personal information such as phone number or address. It does not allow user-to-user image sharing and prohibits sexual conversations, it said.

    The Kentucky lawsuit gives a starkly different portrayal of the platform.

    Despite assurances its site is safe, the company has failed to install basic safety controls, the suit said. Roblox also fails to inform its users and their parents about “dangers inherent” on the platform, it said.

    Coleman, a Republican, said the site’s “cartoonish figures and experiences” appeal to children, but he warned that “underneath this cartoonish, innocent veneer is something sinister. The platform has become a playground for predators who seek to harm our children.”

    The Kentucky suit alleges that children are exposed to “violent or sexual situations within the Roblox universe, with parents reporting children contacted by strangers using third-party chat apps that function as if they are part of the game.”

    Norris said that like many parents, she considered it a safe choice for her children.

    “I described it as a ‘fenced-in backyard’ for kids’ gaming,” she said Tuesday. “And that is the genius and the danger I found of Roblox — the illusion of safety it gives parents like me.”

    “The reality is, Roblox makes it nearly impossible to police as a parent,” she added.

    The suit claims that Roblox’s lax protections violate Kentucky’s Consumer Protection Act and asks a judge to order the company into compliance. The suit seeks penalties of up to $2,000 for each violation of the consumer protection law.

    Coleman said his office is open to negotiating a settlement with Roblox.

    “Our goal is not to shut a platform down,” Coleman said. “Our goal is for Roblox to be safe.”

    Roblox said it shares the goal of keeping kids safe online, and said it would welcome discussions with Coleman’s office to “ensure they have a clear understanding of all Roblox is doing to keep users safe.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A Judge Has Blocked a Trump Administration Effort to Change Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs

    [ad_1]

    A judge Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from requiring recipients of federal teen pregnancy prevention grants to comply with Trump’s orders aimed at curtailing “radical indoctrination” and “gender ideology.”

    The ruling is a victory for three Planned Parenthood affiliates — in California, Iowa and New York — that sued to try to block enforcement of a U.S. Department of Human Services policy document issued in July that they contend contradict the requirements of the grants as established by Congress.

    U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, blasted the administration’s policy change in her written ruling, saying it was “motivated solely by political concerns, devoid of any considered process or analysis, and ignorant of the statutory emphasis on evidence-based programming.”

    The policy requiring changes to the pregnancy prevention program was part of the fallout from a series of executive orders Trump signed starting in his first day back in the White House aimed at rolling back recognition of LGBTQ+ people and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

    In the policy, the administration objected to teaching that promotes same-sex marriage and that “normalizes, or promotes sexual activity for minors.”

    The Planned Parenthood affiliates argued that the new directives were at odds with requirements of the program — and that they were so vague it wasn’t clear what needed to be done to follow them.

    The decision applies not only to the handful of Planned Parenthood groups among the dozens of recipients of the funding, but also nonprofit groups, city and county health departments, Native American tribes and universities that received grants.

    The Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the program, declined to comment on Tuesday’s ruling. It previously said the guidance for the program “ensures that taxpayer dollars no longer support content that undermines parental rights, promotes radical gender ideology, or exposes children to sexually explicit material under the banner of public health.”

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Supreme Court hears arguments on whether states can ban conversion therapy for LBGTQ+ kids

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will hear arguments in its latest LGBTQ+ rights case Tuesday, weighing the constitutionality of bans passed by nearly half of U.S. states on the practice known as conversion therapy for children.

    The justices are hearing a lawsuit from a Christian counselor challenging a Colorado law that prohibits therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. Kaley Chiles, with support from President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, argues the law violates her freedom of speech by barring her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy for kids.

    Colorado, on the other hand, says the measure simply regulates licensed therapists by barring a practice that’s been scientifically discredited and linked to serious harm.

    The arguments come months after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority found states can ban transition-related health care for transgender youths, a setback for LGBTQ rights. The justices are also expected to hear a case about sports participation by transgender players this term.

    Colorado has not sanctioned anyone under the 2019 law, which exempts religious ministries. State attorneys say it still allows any therapist to have wide-ranging, faith-based conversations with young patients about gender and sexuality.

    “The only thing that the law prohibits therapists from doing is performing a treatment that seeks the predetermined outcome of changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity because that treatment is unsafe and ineffective,” Colorado state attorneys wrote.

    Therapy isn’t just speech, they said — it’s health care that governments have a responsibility to regulate. Violating the law carries potential fines of $5,000 and license suspension or even revocation.

    Linda Robertson is a Christian mom of four from Washington state whose son Ryan underwent therapy that promised to change his sexual orientation after he came out to her at age 12. The techniques led him to blame himself when it didn’t work, leaving him ashamed and depressed. He died in 2009, after multiple suicide attempts and a drug overdose at age 20.

    “What happened in conversion therapy, it devastated Ryan’s bond with me and my husband,” she said. “And it absolutely destroyed his confidence he could ever be loved or accepted by God.”

    Chiles contends her approach is different from the kind of conversion therapy once associated with practices like shock therapy decades ago. She said she believes “people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” and she argues evidence of harm from her approach is lacking.

    Chiles says Colorado is discriminating because it allows counselors to affirm minors coming out as gay or identifying as transgender but bans counseling like hers for young patients who may want to change their behavior or feelings. “We’re not saying this counseling should be mandatory, but if someone wants the counseling they should be able to get it,” said one of her attorneys, Jonathan Scruggs.

    The Trump administration said there are First Amendment issues with Colorado’s law that should make the law subject to a higher legal standard that few measures pass.

    Chiles is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that has appeared frequently at the court in recent years. The group also represented a Christian website designer who doesn’t want to work with same-sex couples and successfully challenged a Colorado anti-discrimination law in 2023.

    The group’s argument in the conversion therapy case also builds on another victory from 2018: A Supreme Court decision found California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. Chiles should also be free from that kind of state regulation, the group argued.

    Still, the Supreme Court has also found that regulations that only “incidentally” burden speech are permissible, and the state argues that striking down its law against conversion therapy would undercut states’ ability to regulate discredited health care of all kids.

    The high court agreed to hear the case after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the law. Another appeals court, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, has struck down similar bans in Florida.

    Legal wrangling has continued elsewhere as well. In Wisconsin, the state’s highest court recently cleared the way for the state to enforce its ban. Virginia officials, by contrast, have agreed to scale back the enforcement of its law as part of an agreement with a faith-based conservative group that sued.

    ___

    Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ACLU Says ICE Is Unlawfully Punishing Immigrants at a Notorious Louisiana Detention Center

    [ad_1]

    BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — The immigration detainees sent to a notorious Louisiana prison last month are being punished for crimes for which they have already served time, the American Civil Liberties Union said Monday in a lawsuit challenging the government’s decision to hold what it calls the “worst of the worst” there.

    The lawsuit accuses President Donald Trump’s administration of selecting the former slave plantation known as Angola for its “uniquely horrifying history” and intentionally subjecting immigrant detainees to inhumane conditions — including foul water and lacking basic necessities — in violation of the Double Jeopardy clause, which protects people from being punished twice for the same crime.

    The ACLU also alleges some immigrants detained at the newly opened “Louisiana Lockup” should be released because the government failed to deport them within six months of a removal order. The lawsuit cites a 2001 Supreme Court ruling raised in several recent immigration cases, including that of the Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, that says immigration detention should be “nonpunitive.”

    “The anti-immigrant campaign under the guise of ‘Making America Safe Again’ does not remotely outweigh or justify indefinite detention in ‘America’s Bloodiest Prison’ without any of the rights afforded to criminal defendants,” ACLU attorneys argue in a petition reviewed by The Associated Press.

    The AP sent requests for comment to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry.

    The lawsuit comes a month after state and federal authorities gathered at the sprawling Louisiana State Penitentiary to announce that the previously shuttered prison complex had been refurbished to house up to 400 immigrant detainees that officials said would include some of the most violent in ICE custody.

    The complex had been nicknamed “the dungeon” because it previously held inmates in solitary cells for more than 23 hours a day.

    ICE repurposed the facility amid an ongoing legal battle over an immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz,” and as Trump continues his large-scale attempt to remove millions of people suspected of entering the country illegally. The federal government has been racing to to expand its deportation infrastructure and, with state allies, has announced other new facilities, including what it calls the “Speedway Slammer” in Indiana and the “Cornhusker Clink” in Nebraska. ICE is seeking to detain 100,000 people under a $45 billion expansion Trump signed into law in July.

    At Angola last month, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told reporters the “legendary” maximum security prison, the largest in the nation, had been chosen to house a new ICE facility to encourage people in the U.S. illegally to self-deport. “This facility will hold the most dangerous of criminals,” she said.

    Authorities said the immigration detainees would be isolated from Angola’s thousands of civil prisoners, many of whom are serving life sentences for violent offenses.

    “I know you all in the media will attempt to have a field day with this facility, and you will try to find everything wrong with our operation in an effort to make those who broke the law in some of the most violent ways victims,” Landry, a Republican, said during a news conference last month.

    “If you don’t think that they belong in somewhere like this, you’ve got a problem.”

    The ACLU lawsuit says detainees at “Louisiana Lockup” already were “forced to go on hunger strike” to “demand basic necessities such as medical care, toilet paper, hygiene products and clean drinking water.” Detainees have described a long-neglected facility that was not yet prepared to house them, saying they are contending with mold, dust and ”black” water coming out of showers, court records show.

    Federal and state officials have said those claims are part of a “false narrative” created by the media, and that the hunger strike only occurred after inaccurate reporting.

    The lawsuit was filed in Baton Rouge federal court on behalf of Oscar Hernandez Amaya, a 34-year-old Honduran man who has been in ICE custody for two years. He was transferred to “Louisiana Lockup” last month from an ICE detention center in Pennsylvania.

    Amaya fled Honduras two decades ago after refusing the violent MS-13 gang’s admonition “to torture and kill another human being,” the lawsuit alleges. The gang had recruited him at age 12, court documents say.

    Amaya came to the United States, where he worked “without incident” until 2016. He was arrested that year and later convicted of attempted aggravated assault and sentenced to more than four years in prison. He was released on good-time credits after about two years and then transferred to ICE custody.

    An immigration judge this year awarded Amaya “Convention Against Torture” protection from being returned to Honduras, the lawsuit says, but the U.S. government has failed to deport him to another country.

    “The U.S. Supreme Court has been very clear that immigration detention cannot be used for punitive purposes,” Nora Ahmed, the ACLU of Louisiana’s legal director, told AP. “You cannot serve time for a crime in immigration detention.”

    Mustian reported from New York

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Judge Dismisses Sexual Assault Lawsuit Against Neil Gaiman

    [ad_1]

    Photo: Paul Morigi/Getty Images for ReedPop

    The sexual assault lawsuit against Neil Gaiman filed by Scarlett Pavlovich has been dismissed by a Wisconsin federal judge. The judge did not rule on the facts of the case, but rather that the suit should have been filed in New Zealand and not Wisconsin. “All of the relevant events occurred in New Zealand, Pavlovich is a New Zealand citizen, both parties were living in New Zealand during the relevant time, all relevant evidence and most potential witnesses are located in New Zealand,” court docs read. “Under these circumstances, it is clear that New Zealand is the more appropriate forum for resolving this dispute, so the court will dismiss the case without prejudice.”

    Pavlovich has accused Gaiman of assaulting her while she worked as the nanny to his and then-wife Amanda Palmer’s child. She filed on human-trafficking charges under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, choosing Wisconsin as the venue for the suit because Gaiman has a residence there. The complaint also named Palmer as a co-defendant, for allegedly putting Pavlovich in danger and for withholding wages. If Pavlovich refiles in New Zealand, and Gaiman and Palmer refuse to be served there, the case could return to Wisconsin. Pavlovich is one of several women who accused Gaiman of sexual misconduct and assault in 2024.

    [ad_2]

    Bethy Squires

    Source link

  • Judge temporarily blocks Trump administration from deploying troops in Portland, Oregon

    [ad_1]

    PORTLAND, Ore. — PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from deploying the National Guard in Portland, ruling in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.

    U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued the order pending further arguments in the suit. The plaintiffs say a deployment would violate the U.S. Constitution as well as a federal law that generally prohibits the military from being used to enforce domestic laws.

    Immergut wrote that the case involves the intersection of three fundamental democratic principles: “the relationship between the federal government and the states, between the military and domestic law enforcement, and the balance of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

    “Whether we choose to follow what the Constitution mandates with respect to these three relationships goes to the heart of what it means to live under the rule of law in the United States,” she wrote.

    Generally speaking the president is allowed “a great level of deference” to federalize National Guard troops in situations where regular law enforcement forces are not able to execute the laws of the United States, the judge said, but that has not been the case in Portland.

    Plaintiffs were able to show that the demonstrations at the Portland immigration facility were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days or weeks leading up to the president’s order, the judge wrote, and “overall, the protests were small and uneventful.”

    “The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts.”

    The Defense Department had said it was placing 200 members of Oregon’s National Guard under federal control for 60 days to protect federal property at locations where protests are occurring or likely to occur after Trump called the city “war-ravaged.”

    Oregon officials said that description was ludicrous. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in the city has recently been the site of nightly protests, which typically drew a couple dozen people in recent weeks before the deployment was announced.

    Trump The Republican president has deployed or threatened to deploy troops in several U.S. cities, particularly ones led by Democrats, including Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago and Memphis. Speaking Tuesday to U.S. military leaders in Virginia, the president proposed using cities as training grounds for the armed forces.

    Last month a federal judge ruled that Trump’s deployment of some 4,700 National Guard soldiers and Marines in Los Angeles earlier this year was illegal, but he allowed the 300 who remain in the city to stay as long as they do not enforce civilian laws.

    As for Portland, the Defense Department announced that it was placing 200 members of Oregon’s National Guard under federal control for 60 days to protect federal property at locations where protests are occurring or likely to occur.

    That announcement came after Trump called “war-ravaged” in late September, a characterization that Oregon officials called ludicrous while saying they do not need or want federal troops there.

    The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland has been the site of nightly protests, and the demonstrations and occasional clashes with law enforcement have been limited to a one-block area in a city that covers about 145 square miles (375 square km) and has about 636,000 residents.

    A handful of immigration and legal advocates often gather at the building during the day. At night, recent protests have typically drawn a couple dozen people.

    A larger crowd demonstrated Sept. 28 following the announcement of the guard deployment. The Portland Police Bureau, which has said it does not participate in immigration enforcement and only intervenes in the protests if there is vandalism or criminal activity, arrested two people on assault charges.

    A peaceful march earlier that day drew thousands to downtown and saw no arrests, police said.

    Trump sent federal officers to Portland over the objections of local and state leaders in 2020 during long-running racial justice protests following George Floyd’s killing by Minneapolis police. The administration sent hundreds of agents for the stated purpose of protecting the federal courthouse and other federal property from vandalism.

    That deployment antagonized demonstrators and prompted nightly clashes. Federal officers fired rubber bulled and used tear gas.

    Viral videos captured federal officers arresting people and hustling them into unmarked vehicles. A report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found that while the federal government had legal authority to deploy the officers, many of them lacked the training and equipment necessary for the mission.

    The government agreed this year to settle an excessive force lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union by paying compensating several plaintiffs for their injuries.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration From Deploying Troops in Portland, Oregon

    [ad_1]

    PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from deploying the National Guard in Portland, ruling Saturday in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.

    U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued the order pending further arguments in the suit. She said the relatively small protests the city has seen did not justify the use of federalized forces and allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty.

    “This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote. She later continued, “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”

    State and city officials sued to stop the deployment last week, one day after the Trump administration announced that 200 Oregon National Guard troops would be federalized to protect federal buildings. The president called the city “war-ravaged.”

    Oregon officials said that characterization was ludicrous. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in the city has been the site of nightly protests that typically drew a couple dozen people in recent weeks before the deployment was announced.


    Judge: The federal response didn’t match the facts

    Generally speaking the president is allowed “a great level of deference” to federalize National Guard troops in situations where regular law enforcement forces are not able to execute the laws of the United States, the judge said, but that has not been the case in Portland.

    Plaintiffs were able to show that the demonstrations at the immigration building were not significantly violent or disruptive ahead of the president’s order, the judge wrote, and “overall, the protests were small and uneventful.”

    “The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” Immergut wrote.


    White House suggests an appeal is coming

    Following the ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said that “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”

    Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield called the ruling “a healthy check on the president.”

    “It reaffirms what we already knew: Portland is not the president’s war-torn fantasy. Our city is not ravaged, and there is no rebellion,” Rayfield said in a statement. He added: “Members of the Oregon National Guard are not a tool for him to use in his political theater.”

    Trump has deployed or threatened to deploy troops in several U.S. cities, particularly ones led by Democrats, including Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago and Memphis. Speaking Tuesday to U.S. military leaders in Virginia, he proposed using cities as training grounds for the armed forces.

    Last month a federal judge ruled that the president’s deployment of some 4,700 National Guard soldiers and Marines in Los Angeles this year was illegal, but he allowed the 300 who remain in the city to stay as long as they do not enforce civilian laws. The Trump administration appealed, and an appellate panel has put the lower court’s block on hold while it moves forward.


    Portland protests were small, but grew after deployment was announced

    The Portland protests have been limited to a one-block area in a city that covers about 145 square miles (375 square km) and has about 636,000 residents.

    They grew somewhat following the Sept. 28 announcement of the guard deployment. The Portland Police Bureau, which has said it does not participate in immigration enforcement and only intervenes in the protests if there is vandalism or criminal activity, arrested two people on assault charges. A peaceful march earlier that day drew thousands to downtown and saw no arrests, police said.

    On Saturday, before the ruling was released, roughly 400 people marched to the ICE facility. The crowd included people of all ages and races, families with children and older people using walkers. Federal agents responded with chemical crowd control munitions, including tear gas canisters and less-lethal guns that sprayed pepper balls. At least six people were arrested as the protesters reached the ICE facility.

    Trump sent federal officers to Portland over the objections of local and state leaders in 2020 during long-running racial justice protests following George Floyd’s killing by Minneapolis police. The administration sent hundreds of agents for the stated purpose of protecting the federal courthouse and other federal property from vandalism.

    That deployment antagonized demonstrators and prompted nightly clashes. Federal officers fired rubber bulled and used tear gas.

    Viral videos captured federal officers arresting people and hustling them into unmarked vehicles. A report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found that while the federal government had legal authority to deploy the officers, many of them lacked the training and equipment necessary for the mission.

    The government agreed this year to settle an excessive force lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union by paying compensating several plaintiffs for their injuries.

    Boone reported from Boise, Idaho. Associated Press writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Abrego Garcia wins request for hearing on whether smuggling charges are illegally ‘vindictive’

    [ad_1]

    HARRISBURG, Pa. — HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A federal judge has concluded that the Department of Justice’s prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on human smuggling charges may be an illegal retaliation after he successfully sued the Trump administration over his deportation to El Salvador.

    The case of Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was a construction worker in Maryland, has become a proxy for the partisan struggle over President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration policy and mass deportation agenda.

    U.S. District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw late Friday granted a request by lawyers for Abrego Garcia and ordered discovery and an evidentiary hearing in Abrego Garcia’s effort to show that the federal human smuggling case against him in Tennessee is illegally retaliatory.

    Crenshaw said Abrego Garcia had shown that there is “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be indictive.” That evidence included statements by various Trump administration officials and the timeline of the charges being filed.

    The departments of Justice and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to inquiries about the case Saturday.

    In his 16-page ruling, Crenshaw said many statements by Trump administration officials “raise cause for concern,” but one stood out.

    That statement by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, on a Fox News program after Abrego Garcia was charged in June, seemed to suggest that the Department of Justice charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful deportation case, Crenshaw wrote.

    Blanche’s ”remarkable statements could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights” to sue over his deportation “rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct,” Crenshaw wrote.

    Likewise, Crenshaw noted that the Department of Homeland Security reopened an investigation into Abrego Garcia days after the U.S. Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.

    Abrego Garcia was indicted on May 21 and charged June 6, the day the U.S. brought him from a prison in El Salvador back to the U.S. He pleaded not guilty and is now being held in Pennsylvania.

    If convicted in the Tennessee case, Abrego Garcia will be deported, federal officials have said. A U.S. immigration judge has denied Abrego Garcia’s bid for asylum, although he can appeal.

    The Salvadoran national has an American wife and children and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the United States illegally as a teenager.

    In 2019, he was arrested by immigration agents. He requested asylum but was not eligible because he had been in the U.S. for more than a year. But the judge ruled he could not be deported to El Salvador, where he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family.

    The human smuggling charges in Tennessee stem from a 2022 traffic stop. He was not charged at the time.

    Trump administration officials have waged a relentless public relations campaign against Abrego Garcia, repeatedly referring to him as a member of the MS-13 gang, among other things, despite the fact he has not been convicted of any crimes.

    Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have denounced the criminal charges and the deportation efforts, saying they are an attempt to punish him for standing up to the administration.

    Abrego Garcia contends that, while imprisoned in El Salvador, he suffered beatings, sleep deprivation and psychological torture. El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, has denied those allegations.

    ___

    Follow Marc Levy on X at: https://x.com/timelywriter

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Abrego Garcia Wins Request for Hearing on Whether Smuggling Charges Are Illegally ‘Vindictive’

    [ad_1]

    HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A federal judge has concluded that the Department of Justice’s prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on human smuggling charges may be an illegal retaliation after he successfully sued the Trump administration over his deportation to El Salvador.

    The case of Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was a construction worker in Maryland, has become a proxy for the partisan struggle over President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration policy and mass deportation agenda.

    U.S. District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw late Friday granted a request by lawyers for Abrego Garcia and ordered discovery and an evidentiary hearing in Abrego Garcia’s effort to show that the federal human smuggling case against him in Tennessee is illegally retaliatory.

    Crenshaw said Abrego Garcia had shown that there is “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be indictive.” That evidence included statements by various Trump administration officials and the timeline of the charges being filed.

    The departments of Justice and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to inquiries about the case Saturday.

    In his 16-page ruling, Crenshaw said many statements by Trump administration officials “raise cause for concern,” but one stood out.

    That statement by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, on a Fox News program after Abrego Garcia was charged in June, seemed to suggest that the Department of Justice charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful deportation case, Crenshaw wrote.

    Blanche’s ”remarkable statements could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights” to sue over his deportation “rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct,” Crenshaw wrote.

    Likewise, Crenshaw noted that the Department of Homeland Security reopened an investigation into Abrego Garcia days after the U.S. Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.

    If convicted in the Tennessee case, Abrego Garcia will be deported, federal officials have said. A U.S. immigration judge has denied Abrego Garcia’s bid for asylum, although he can appeal.

    In 2019, he was arrested by immigration agents. He requested asylum but was not eligible because he had been in the U.S. for more than a year. But the judge ruled he could not be deported to El Salvador, where he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family.

    The human smuggling charges in Tennessee stem from a 2022 traffic stop. He was not charged at the time.

    Trump administration officials have waged a relentless public relations campaign against Abrego Garcia, repeatedly referring to him as a member of the MS-13 gang, among other things, despite the fact he has not been convicted of any crimes.

    Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have denounced the criminal charges and the deportation efforts, saying they are an attempt to punish him for standing up to the administration.

    Abrego Garcia contends that, while imprisoned in El Salvador, he suffered beatings, sleep deprivation and psychological torture. El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, has denied those allegations.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Universal reopening Stardust Racers ride two weeks after man’s death

    [ad_1]

    ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Universal Orlando Resort plans to reopen its Stardust Racers ride at Epic Universe more than two weeks after a 32-year-old man died of blunt force injuries after going on the high-speed roller coaster.

    Signs will be updated to reinforce existing warnings and eligibility requirements to help visitors decide if they should go on the dual-launch coaster, which reaches speeds up to 62 mph (100 kph), Karen Irwin, president and chief operating officer at Universal Orlando Resort, said Friday in a memo to workers. The ride will reopen on Saturday.

    The family of Kevin Rodriguez Zavala publicly had urged Universal not to reopen the ride until all investigations were finished and they had a better understanding of how he died. The medical examiner for the Orlando area ruled the cause of death as multiple blunt impact injuries and said the manner of death was an accident. The full autopsy report hasn’t been made public.

    Zavala had a spinal disability from birth and used a wheelchair, but his family’s attorneys said his disability didn’t cause his death on Sept. 17.

    Irwin said the ride at Universal’s newest theme park had undergone an extensive operational and technical review that confirmed the ride systems had functioned properly and Universal workers had followed proper procedures. The ride system’s manufacturer and an independent roller coaster engineering expert also conducted on-site testing which supported Universal’s findings, she said.

    Separately, a woman sued Universal Orlando Resort last week, claiming she was injured on the ride which she claimed shook her violently and slammed her head into her seat’s headrest. The attorneys for Zavala’s family said this week that others have reached out to them with similar stories about the ride which officially opened in May with the debut of the new theme park.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Iowa School District Sues Search Firm That Vetted Superintendent Arrested by ICE Last Week

    [ad_1]

    DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa‘s largest school district said they filed a lawsuit Friday against the consulting company it hired to identify superintendent candidates, alleging it did not properly vet Ian Roberts, who was arrested by immigration authorities last week.

    Des Moines Public Schools hired JG Consulting in 2022 to facilitate the leadership search, which led to the hiring of Roberts the following year.

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcements officials have said the Guyana native was in the U.S. illegally and had no work authorization. Federal prosecutors charged Roberts on Thursday with possessing four firearms while in the U.S. illegally, including one authorities said was wrapped in a towel inside the Jeep Cherokee he was driving when agents pulled him over, according to court filings.

    The district’s complaint accused the search firm of breach of contract and negligence, and school board chair Jackie Norris said the focus is on recouping taxpayer dollars and addressing reputational damage.

    “The firm failed its duty to properly vet candidates. Ian Roberts should have never been presented as a finalist,” Norris said. “If we knew what we knew now, he would never have been hired.”

    James Guerra, president and CEO of Texas-based JG Consulting, did not immediately respond to phone calls or messages seeking comment Friday. A phone call to JG Consulting’s customer service line went unanswered.

    The arrest of Roberts after he ran from a traffic stop has shocked and confused the community. Students have walked out of their classrooms in protest. Community members have gathered to pose questions to Roberts’ lawyers, trying to reconcile the vibrant man who engaged with students and staff with the man at the center of a scandal that has grabbed national attention. The Des Moines school board has said it was “a victim of deception” throughout his tenure.

    Roberts, who is in federal custody in Des Moines, resigned as superintendent this week after a state education board revoked his license.

    Federal authorities said Roberts had a final removal order that was issued last year, and an immigration judge denied a motion to reopen Roberts’ immigration case this April. Roberts’ attorney, Alfredo Parrish, has said Roberts was under the impression from a prior attorney that his immigration case was “resolved successfully.”

    The contract between the district and JG Consulting, which has long been available on the district’s website, said the company was responsible for advertising, recruitment, application and resume review, public domain search and complete reference checks, as well as the presentation of qualified candidates.

    Roberts has two decades of experience in education and used a doctorate title well before earning a doctoral degree from Trident University International in 2021.

    Roberts falsely claimed on a resume he submitted with his application that he earned a doctorate in urban educational leadership from Morgan State University in 2007, according to documents The Associated Press obtained through a public records request.

    Although Roberts was enrolled in that doctorate program from 2002 to 2007, the school’s public relations office confirmed in an email that he didn’t receive that degree. A background check during the hiring process said the same, flagging the discrepancy with the resume, according to the district.

    The district said the full school board only saw a resume that was revised to indicate he had not completed his dissertation, which is necessary for the degree. But the board did have access to the background check alerting members to the initial variance.

    The consulting company was required to bring all information, positive or negative, to the board’s attention but failed to do so, Norris said. “This is about accountability.”

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Parents of woman killed in Tesla crash allege design flaw trapped her in burning car

    [ad_1]

    The parents of a college student killed in a Tesla crash say she was trapped in the car as it burst into flames because of a design flaw that made it nearly impossible for her to open the door, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday.

    The parents of Krysta Tsukahara allege that the company that helped Elon Musk become the world’s richest man knew about the flaw for years and could have moved fast to fix the problem but did not, leaving the 19-year-old arts student trapped amid flames and smoke that eventually killed her.

    Tesla did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

    The new legal threat to Tesla filed in Alameda County Superior Court comes just weeks after federal regulators opened an investigation into complaints by Tesla drivers of stuck-door problems. The probe and suit come at a delicate time for the company as it seeks to convince Americans that its cars will soon be safe enough to ride in without anyone in the driver’s seat.

    Tsukahara was in the back of a Cybertruck when the driver who was drunk and had taken drugs smashed into a tree in a suburb of San Francisco, according to the suit. Three of the four people in the car, including the driver, died. A fourth was pulled from the car after a rescuer smashed a window and reached in.

    The lawsuit was first reported by The New York Times.

    Tesla doors have been at the center of several crash cases because the battery powering the unlocking mechanism can be destroyed in a fire and the manual releases that override that system are difficult to find.

    The lawsuit follows several others that have claimed various safety problems with Tesla cars. In August, a Florida jury decided that the family of another dead college student, this one killed by a runaway Tesla years ago, should be awarded more than $240 million in damages.

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which opened its stuck-door investigation last month, is looking into complaints by drivers that after exiting their cars, they couldn’t open back doors to get their children out and, in some cases, had to break the window to reach them.

    ___

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Family of Piedmont Cybertruck crash victim sues Tesla over alleged design flaws

    [ad_1]

    The family of Krysta Tsukahara, one of three victims in a fatal Piedmont Tesla Cybertruck crash last November, filed a lawsuit against Tesla in an Alameda County court on Thursday, alleging the vehicle’s design failed to provide a manual door to allow their daughter to escape the vehicle.

    The filing represents an escalation in the family’s pursuit of legal remedies connected to the death of their daughter in late November 2024, taking aim at the Cybertruck automaker which has come under scrutiny for eight recalls since 2024 and ongoing concerns about battery combustion.

    “Her death was preventable. She was alive after the crash. She called out for help. And she couldn’t get out. We are filing this lawsuit not just for accountability, but because there are other families out there who may never know the risks until it’s too late,” Krysta’s parents, Carl and Noelle Tsukahara, said in a statement.

    Krysta Tsukahara, 19, died from smoke inhalation and burns suffered in a fatal car crash on Nov. 27, 2024, in Piedmont. Her family is suing the owner of the vehicle, Charles Patterson, and the family of the driver, Soren Dixon. Courtesy of the Tsukahara family

    The Tsukaharas’ lawsuit alleges Tesla had ignored concerns from customers, bystanders and first responders about the company’s reliance on electronic doors for its vehicles, according to the complaint. The lawsuit further states that Tesla was aware of the threats its electronic doors posed to vehicle occupants, according to the lawsuit, but continued to “design, market and sell” vehicles with this feature.

    “Consumers lodged dozens of complaints with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), many warning that rear-seat passengers — especially children — could be trapped inside during a crash or a fire,” the lawsuit states.

    The lawsuit calls out Tesla founder Elon Musk for being personally aware of the problems with Tesla vehicles’ doors. At a 2013 earnings call, Musk acknowledged these issues, saying that “occasionally the sensor would malfunction … so you’d pull on the door handle and it wouldn’t open.”  Musk assured investors that the design flaw had been fixed, even as failures continued to happen for years, with the lawsuit citing more than 30 examples of customers’ complaints about Tesla vehicles’ doors refusing to open.

    On Nov. 27, 2024, Krysta Tsukahara, after returning home for Thanksgiving break from Savannah College of Arts and Design, attended a party with other graduates of Piedmont High School. The party, held at a private residence, included alcohol consumption by minors.

    Around 3 a.m., Soren Dixon, 19, convinced Tsukahara and a handful of other partygoers to go to his home at 6861 Estates Dr. to pick up a Cybertruck that was owned by his grandfather, according to court documents. Dixon drove the Cybertruck with Jack Nelson, 20, Jordan Miller, 19, and Tsukahara as his passengers as they drove along Hampton Avenue toward another Piedmont residence, according to authorities.

    Dixon had consumed approximately eight alcoholic beverages that evening, according to an unidentified witness in a California Highway Patrol report. Dixon’s autopsy also confirmed the presence of 180 nanograms of cocaine and 55 nanograms of methamphetamine per milliliter of blood at the time of the crash.

    Just blocks away from their destination, Dixon accelerated out of a stop sign, crashed into a tree and struck a retaining wall. Another Piedmont High graduate, Matt Riordan, had followed in a vehicle behind the Cybertruck when he came upon the wreck as flames began to consume the vehicle. Riordan used a tree branch to break the passenger door window, where he pulled Jordan Miller from the vehicle. He returned moments later to save Krysta, Nelson and Dixon.

    “I could hear Krysta yelling and the car saying ‘crash detected,’ ” Riordan told authorities, according to court documents. “I went back to the broken window and yelled for them to try to get out at this window. … Krysta tried to come up, sticking her head (out) from the back, I grabbed her arm to try and pull her towards me, but she retreated because of the fire.”

    In April, the Tsukaharas filed a lawsuit against Dixon’s family, claiming they had been barred from accessing the vehicle and kept in the dark by the other families affected by the crash. The Tsukaharas alleged that Dixon “negligently and carelessly drove” the vehicle, causing their daughter’s death.

    The Tsukaharas’ latest lawsuit blames Tesla, too, claiming its “negligent” door design caused the sudden and tragic death of their daughter.

    “Krysta was a bright light in our lives — an honors student, a creative soul, and a beloved daughter,” Carl and Noelle Tsukahara said in a statement. “We never want this to happen to anyone else.”

    Originally Published:

    [ad_2]

    Chase Hunter

    Source link

  • Federal Government Could Resume Taking DACA Applications for Permits to Live and Work in U.S.

    [ad_1]

    McALLEN, Texas (AP) — The federal government is expected to again accept new applications for a program that grants some people without legal immigration status the ability to live and work in the United States.

    Lawyers for the federal government and immigrant advocates have presented plans before a federal judge that would open the door again to accepting applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, otherwise known as DACA.

    One state — Texas, where the case is being heard — however, would be exempted from providing work permits.

    It’s estimated that hundreds of thousands of people could be eligible to be enrolled in DACA, once a federal judge issues an order to formalize plans laid out by the Department of Justice in a legal filing made on Monday. The program, created under the Obama administration, grants people without legal immigration status who were brought into the country by their parents two-year, renewable permits to live and work in the U.S. legally.

    The program has allowed people who were brought to the United States as children to temporarily remain in the country and obtain work permits. It does not confer legal status but provides protection from deportation.

    Eligibility requirements include people who entered the country as children before their 16th birthday, were under 31 years old as of June 15, 2012, and have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three misdemeanors. There would be restrictions related to work permits for those who reside in Texas, which filed a lawsuit against the DACA program in 2018.

    DOJ attorneys laid out the proposal before U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen on Monday as part of the ongoing Texas lawsuit. It would allow U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to take new and renewal applications for DACA across the country, which it has not done for four years.

    In Texas, USCIS would take new and renewal applications for the DACA program but recipients residing in the state will not receive a work permit.

    Attorneys representing DACA recipients proposed adding a wind-down period that would allow Texas residents to keep their work authorization for one more renewal period.

    These proposals follow an earlier decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowing the program to continue with the work permit carveout in Texas.

    The federal government and attorneys for DACA recipients have two more opportunities in October to file responses to the proposals submitted this week. Hanen, based in Houston, will then decide what proposal or combination of proposals to implement in his order.

    Immigrant advocates are not celebrating yet but believe thousands may be eligible for the program. Aside from the over 533,000 who are enrolled already in DACA, about 1.1 million people may be eligible across the country, according to a 2023 estimate from the Migration Policy Institute.

    People interested in applying were urged to start preparing. “While we are still waiting for an official decision, we believe our communities and families should be prepared and begin gathering the required documents,” Michelle Celleri, Legal Rights Director for Alliance San Diego, said in a statement.

    Other advocates are cautiously optimistic. Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for United We Dream, pointed to a section in the government’s proposal that could hint at changes. “These proposals do not limit DHS from undertaking any future lawful changes to DACA,” the government’s proposal said in Monday’s filing.

    “We need to be able to look at this in a fuller picture than just this case, because we’re seeing the administration detain and deport DACA recipients,” Macedo do Nascimento said on Wednesday.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • LA joins other cities in suing feds over conditions on disaster funding

    [ad_1]

    The city of Los Angeles has joined more than two dozen local governments across the nation that challenge alleged Trump administration attempts to place conditions on emergency and disaster preparedness funds, the City Attorney’s Office announced on Wednesday.

    The lawsuit filed in federal court in Northern California alleges the federal government has threatened to withhold more than $350 million in Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency grants unless the municipalities assist in the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts, as well as abandon their own diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

    According to the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, the city could lose roughly $56 million in DHS grant funds during the 2025-26 fiscal year. The funds could be used to pay for salaries, training, and supplies for the city’s Urban Search & Rescue task force; radiation and nuclear detection equipment; staffing costs for an additional 12 LAFD firefighters; maintenance and repairs of four LAPD watercraft used to patrol the Port of Los Angeles; and other homeland security and emergency preparedness activities, according to attorneys.

    The lawsuit seeks a court order preventing the federal government from imposing any such conditions and a declaration that states those conditions are unconstitutional.

    The complaint states that the local governments “now face a choice that is not only untenable and unlawful, but also urgent: either accept conditions that are unconstitutional and contrary to law, or lose millions of dollars in federal grant funding used to keep their residents safe and ensure continuity of government.”

    “The Trump administration’s unprecedented weaponization of federal emergency management grants is unconscionable and unconstitutional,” Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto said in a statement. “Congress appropriated these funds to keep millions of residents safe, and placing unlawful conditions on these funds puts millions of lives at risk. I am proud to be part of this coalition that is fighting to protect our respective residents and preserve constitutional limits on executive overreach.”

    The city of Los Angeles is also part of separate, but similar litigation filed earlier this year alleging that funds for key city services in the form of Department of Transportation and U.S. Housing and Urban Development grants are being threatened unless the city and other local governments adhere to Trump administration policies.

    [ad_2]

    City News Service

    Source link

  • Los Angeles County to pay $20M to settle lawsuit over death of boy who was tortured

    [ad_1]

    PALMDALE, Calif. — Los Angeles County will pay $20 million to the family of a 4-year-old boy who was tortured to death by his parents six years ago in a case that brought scrutiny of the region’s child welfare system.

    Noah Cuatro died at a hospital in 2019, days before his fifth birthday, after being found motionless at the family’s apartment in Palmdale, north of LA. His parents, Jose Maria Cuatro Jr. and Ursula Elaine Juarez, later pleaded no contest to murder and torture charges.

    The boy’s great-grandmother, Eva Hernandez, sued the county’s Department of Children and Family Services in 2020, alleging the agency failed to keep Noah safe. Cuatro had been under department supervision from the time he was born because his mother had been accused of fracturing his half-sister’s skull.

    The Los Angeles Times reported the department had ignored a court order giving it 10 days to get Noah away from his parents and seen by a doctor after multiple reports of neglect and abuse.

    The child welfare department said since Noah’s death it has hired thousands of social workers to decrease caseloads and has retrained staffers on interviewing techniques and use of forensic exams.

    “It is DCFS’ hope that this resolution gives Noah’s family a sense of peace,” the department said in a statement. “DCFS remains committed to learning from the past, improving its work, and operating with transparency.”

    Attorney Brian Claypool, who represented Cuatro’s family in the lawsuit, told the Times that Noah’s death was a direct result of the county failing to follow the court order to remove him from his parents.

    County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, whose district includes Palmdale, said she hopes the settlement announced Tuesday will provide “some measure of support” to help Noah’s surviving siblings and other family members heal.

    “Noah’s life was not in vain,” Barger said in a statement. “His case has reinforced the need for ongoing review of child welfare cases, stronger partnerships with our schools, and a stabilized DCFS workforce to better protect children in the Antelope Valley.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ICE arrested a U.S. citizen—twice—during Alabama construction site raids. Now he’s suing.

    [ad_1]

    An Alabama construction worker is challenging the Trump administration’s warrantless construction site raids after he says he was arrested and detained by federal immigration agents—twice—despite being a U.S. citizen with a valid ID in his pocket.

    In a federal civil rights lawsuit filed today in the Southern District of Alabama, Leo Garcia Venegas is seeking to stop “dragnet raids” that target Latinos like himself, without any probable cause besides their ethnicity. 

    “It feels like there is nothing I can do to stop immigration agents from arresting me whenever they want,” Venegas said in a press release by the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that filed the suit on his behalf. “I just want to work in peace. The Constitution protects my ability to do that.”

    Venegas and the Institute for Justice argue that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies allow immigration agents to illegally raid private construction sites, detain workers without reasonable suspicion, and continue detaining them even after they offer evidence of citizenship or legal status. All of this, they say, violates the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    “Armed and masked federal officers are raiding private construction sites in Alabama, detaining whoever they think looks undocumented, and ignoring proof of citizenship,” Jared McClain, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, said in the press release. “That’s unconstitutional, and this case seeks to bring that practice to an end.”

    Venegas was detained twice in May and June during raids on private construction sites where he was working. In both instances, the lawsuit says, masked immigration officers entered the private sites without a warrant and began detaining workers based solely on their apparent ethnicity.

    On May 21, Venegas was working on a concrete crew at a construction site in Baldwin County, Alabama, when immigration officers hopped the fence into the site. According to the suit, “The officers ran right past the white and black workers without detaining them and went straight for the Latino workers.”

    The officers tackled Venegas’ brother, who was also on the crew, and Venegas began filming the scene on his cell phone. One of the officers then approached Venegas and said, “You’re making this more complicated than you want to.”

    Immediately after, the officer grabbed Venegas and began wrestling him to the ground. Another construction worker also took cell phone video of the two brothers’ arrests, which shows the agent struggling with Venegas who repeatedly yells, “I’m a citizen.”

    Two other officers joined in to subdue Venegas, telling him to “Get on the fucking ground.”

    Watch the Institute Justice’s video on the case, which includes footage of the arrest:

    According to the suit, the officers retrieved Venegas’ REAL ID from his pocket, but they called it fake, kept him handcuffed, and detained for more than an hour in the Alabama summer sun, until an officer agreed to run his social security number.

    Then on June 12, Venegas was working in a nearly finished house when ICE agents cornered him in a bedroom and ordered him to come with them. Venegas was marched outside to the edge of the subdivision where he was working to have his immigration status checked. According to the lawsuit, two other U.S. citizens had been rounded up with him. Again, officers said his REAL ID could be fake and detained for 20 to 30 minutes before releasing him.

    The Institute for Justice says in its lawsuit on Venegas’ behalf that this sort of behavior is “no accident.” It’s explicit DHS policy.

    “Under DHS’s challenged policies, immigration officers are authorized to presume that construction workers on private property are undocumented based only on their demographic profile and occupation, and can disregard evidence to the contrary—like Leo’s telling them he’s a citizen and presenting a REAL ID.”

    The lawsuit asks the court to block enforcement of the policy and award damages to Venegas, as well as a proposed class of similar plaintiffs, for violations of Fourth Amendment rights.

    Venegas is one of many documented cases of U.S. citizens being violently detained and arrested during indiscriminate federal immigration sweeps. The Institute for Justice is also representing George Retes, an Army veteran and U.S. citizen. Retes says he was pepper-sprayed, dragged out of his car and thrown on the ground during a July raid on a legal marijuana company in California. Despite being a citizen, he alleges he was detained by ICE for three days, during which he says he was kept in solitary confinement, not allowed a phone call or lawyer, and never presented before a judge.

    On August 20, five U.S. citizens in Southern California filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security over their arrests by immigration agents. One of the plaintiffs, Cary Lopez Alvarado, was nine months pregnant when ICE and U.S. Border Protection agents arrested and shackled her. She alleges she went into labor prematurely as a result of her wrongful arrest and assault.

    Earlier this month, the Supreme Court gave its blessing to just this kind of racial profiling by immigration officers, overturning a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that found the Trump’s administration was likely violating the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens by seizing them based solely on factors such as “apparent race or ethnicity.” 

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh released a concurring opinion in which he waved away concerns that allowing such profiling would lead to citizens and legal residents being unduly harassed.

    “As for stops of those individuals who are legally in the country, the questioning in those circumstances is typically brief,” Kavanaugh wrote, “and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U. S. citizens or otherwise legally in the United States.”

    Whatever world Kavanaugh is describing, it’s not the one that Venegas lives in.

    “The raids continue in the neighborhoods,” Venegas says in the Institute for Justice video. “I live in fear every day that when I get to work it will happen again.”

    DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    C.J. Ciaramella

    Source link

  • DOJ sues LA sheriff for not giving out concealed carry licenses quickly enough

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — The U.S. Department of Justice sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department on Tuesday, alleging it violated the Constitution by moving too slowly to process gun licenses for people who want to carry concealed weapons.

    The sheriff’s department’s “unreasonable delays” in granting licenses violates California residents’ Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division said in a complaint filed in Los Angeles federal court.

    “The Second Amendment protects the fundamental constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “Los Angeles County may not like that right, but the Constitution does not allow them to infringe upon it.”

    Messages were sent to the sheriff’s department seeking comment.

    The lawsuit comes after the DOJ began analyzing concealed-carry permit applications in the county starting last March.

    “Almost two months after receiving notice of the Division’s investigation, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department provided data and documents that revealed only two approvals from over 8,000 applications, and that the Sheriff’s Department set out interviews to approve licenses as far as two years after receiving the completed application,” the DOJ statement said.

    The sheriff’s department waits an average 281 days to start processing applications, violating a California law requiring initial reviews within 90 days, according to the complaint.

    The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction requiring the sheriff’s department to issue concealed carry licenses in a timely fashion under the law.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom has positioned himself as a leader on gun control and said he will push for stricter regulations.

    In January, a federal appeals court prevented a state law from taking effect that banned people from carrying firearms in most public places. That decision, which the state is appealing, kept in place a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney blocking the law. Carney said it violates the Second Amendment and that gun rights groups would likely prevail in proving it unconstitutional.

    The law would prohibit people from carrying concealed guns in 26 types of places, including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawsuit against Brown University sparks debate on campus police secrecy at colleges

    [ad_1]

    PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A new lawsuit against Brown University has renewed questions surrounding the secrecy afforded many law enforcement officers employed by private colleges and universities across the U.S.

    Unlike public campuses, private higher education institutions are largely exempt from disclosing arrest records, incident reports and other documents even as they employ officers who have the authority to detain students, as well as, in some cases, use force. This lack of transparency has long raised objections from watchdog groups and open government advocates who say such records are critical to holding law enforcement accountable.

    In a recently filed legal challenge, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island is hoping to make a dent in that practice by arguing that Brown’s police department should comply with the state’s public records law.

    “These private university police officers have the same arrest powers, detention powers, and other powers that any other police officer has in the state working for a city or town,” said Steven Brown, Rhode Island’s ACLU executive director. “We think that in light of that fact, they should be treated the same as public police officers.”

    So far Brown has declined to comment on the lawsuit, but their attorneys have filed a motion to dismiss the suit.

    Connecticut, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Virginia are just the handful of states where private institution’s police departments are subject to public records laws, according to the Student Press Law Center. The rest are largely exempt. In Massachusetts, the state Supreme Court explicitly ruled Harvard University’s campus police were not subject to the state’s open records laws because they were a private university.

    At Brown, the ACLU is representing two journalists who were both denied their public records requests seeking arrest reports made by Brown’s officers. ACLU claims Brown’s campus police operate under state-authorized police powers, which in turn makes them subject to Rhode Island public records law.

    Both reporters, one a former Brown student who wrote for the independent university newspaper and the other a reporter with Motif Magazine, filed complaints with the state hoping to appeal their denial. However, the state attorney general’s office issued an opinion siding with Brown police.

    “Whenever people are being arrested and criminally charged, state law gives the public — and therefore the press acting on behalf of the public — the right and the duty to find out what the police are doing in their name,” said Michael Bilow, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and a reporter with Motif Magazine.

    “If the public and the press can’t find out what the police are doing using the power of the law then what you end up with is a secret police,” he added.

    Yet even as access to public records on private campuses may be challenging, these schools are subject to some federal disclosure requirements when it comes to crime data.

    Under the Clery Act, colleges and universities that receive federal funding are required to collect data on campus crime and notify students of threats — something that the majority of both private and public schools accept. Schools must disseminate an annual security report that includes crime reports and information on efforts to improve campus safety.

    These reports provide public safety information on their campus, but they’re not always comprehensive. Last year, Liberty University agreed to pay the U.S. Department of Education an unprecedented $14 million fine in part for its failure to disclose information about crimes on its campus.

    One former Brown police officer, who served at the department for 18 years, says he became increasingly alarmed at the culture he observed. Michael Greco says he witnessed a police force that prioritized limiting negative attention about the school, noting that fellow officers would often refer to the police department as the “Queen’s army” dedicated to keeping information inside the “Brown bubble.”

    “It all revolved around this loophole in the law that Brown’s a private institution with police powers,” he said. “They can then take what should be a public record and make it into a private record. And it seems that that was our primary purpose.”

    Greco remembered one incident in 2021 where he and fellow colleagues were instructed not to use radios when responding to a possible bomb threat on campus where someone was threatening to “shoot cops.” Greco said the department didn’t want to alert Providence police, which monitors the radio and would respond to that type of incident.

    While the bomb and shooter ended up being a false alarm, Greco says leadership was unhappy how he later described the incident in his report summarizing the events. Greco has since left the department, and filed a workers’ compensation claim against Brown after developing post-traumatic stress disorder that he says he began experiencing after the 2021 incident. The case is being settled, according to court documents.

    Greco has since publicly called for more changes inside Brown University, including testifying in front of lawmakers in support of changing state law to explicitly make universities like Brown subject to open records law.

    “I think there should be public pressure to get some of this changed,” he said. “They should be held at least to the same standards as a public police department.”

    Similar concerns are shared by some of the students also watching college campuses handle high-profile protests and working under President Donald Trump’s administration.

    “I think there needs to be greater transparency about what’s going on with these arrests on campus, especially at a time when a lot of the public doesn’t know what’s happening in higher ed and there’s disagreements nationally about the direction of higher ed and what it stands for,” said Audrey Gmerek, a Brown University student.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • YouTube to pay $24.5 million to settle lawsuit over Trump’s account suspension after Jan. 6 attack

    [ad_1]

    Google’s YouTube has agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle a lawsuit President Donald Trump brought after the video site suspended his account following the Jan. 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol following the election that resulted in him leaving the White House for four years.

    The settlement of the more than four-year-old case earmarks $22 million for Trump to contribute to the Trust for the National Mall and a construction of a White House ballroom, according to court documents filed Monday. The remaining $2.5 million will be paid to other parties involved in the case, including the writer Naomi Wolf and the American Conservative Union.

    Alphabet, the parent of Google, is the third major technology company to settle a volley of lawsuits that Trump brought for what he alleged had unfairly muzzled him after his first term as president ended in January 2021. He filed similar cases Facebook parent Meta Platforms and Twitter before it was bought by billionaire Elon Musk in 2022 and rebranded as X.

    Meta agreed to pay $25 million to settle Trumps’ lawsuit over his 2021 suspension from Facebook and X agreed to settle the lawsuit that Trump brought against Twitter for $10 million. When the lawsuits against Meta. Twitter and YouTube were filed, legal experts predicted Trump had little chance of prevailing.

    After buying Twitter for $44.5 billion, Musk later became major contributor to Trump’s successful 2024 campaign that resulted in his re-election and then spent several months leading a cost-cutting effort that purged thousands of workers from the federal government payroll before the two had a bitter falling out. Both Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg were among the tech leaders who lined up behind Trump during his second inauguration in January in a show of solidarity that was widely interpreted as a sign of the industry’s intention to work more closely with the president than during his first administration.

    ABC News, meanwhile, agreed to pay $15 million in December toward Trump’s presidential library to settle a defamation lawsuit over anchor George Stephanopoulos’ inaccurate on-air assertion that the president-elect had been found civilly liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll. And in July, Paramount decided to pay Trump $16 million to settle a lawsuit regarding editing at CBS’ storied “60 Minutes” news program.

    The settlement does not constitute an admission of liability, the filing says. Google confirmed the settlement but declined to comment beyond it.

    Google declined to comment on the reasons for the settlement., but Trump’s YouTube account has been restored since 2023. The settlement is will barely dent Alphabet, which has a market value of nearly $3 trillion — an increase of about $600 billion, or 25%, since Trump’s return to the White House.

    The disclosure of the settlement came a week before a scheduled Oct. 6 court hearing to discuss the case with U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers in Oakland, California.

    [ad_2]

    Source link