Tag: lawsuits

States Sue Trump Over New Tariffs Imposed Under 1974 Trade Act

A coalition of 24 Democrat-led states has filed a sweeping federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump and several federal agencies and officials, arguing that their latest tariffs violate both federal law and the U.S. Constitution. The case, filed last Thursday in the United States Court of International Trade, challenges tariffs imposed under long-dormant Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 right after the Supreme Court struck down the administration’s earlier “emergency” tariff policy.

The states are asking the court to block the tariffs and order refunds for the costs already paid.

A New Tariff Strategy

The legal battle began after a major ruling from the Supreme Court on February 20.

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Court ruled that the administration could not impose sweeping tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). That law allows presidents to respond to economic emergencies, but the Court concluded that it does not authorize tariffs. The ruling was a significant blow to the administration’s trade policy. For more than a year, the White House had been imposing global tariffs using IEEPA.

But the administration swiftly adopted a new strategy. Per the challenge:

Having lost the battle on IEEPA, the President now dusts off a separate statute: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2132, which is another statute that has never been used to impose tariffs. Indeed, it has never been used at all.

On the same day the Supreme Court decision was issued, Trump signed a proclamation invoking Section 122 to impose a 10-percent tariff on most imports worldwide for a period of 150 days. The new tariff took effect on February 24.

The next day, the president announced on Truth Social that the tariff would rise to 15 percent — the maximum rate allowed by the statute. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent later confirmed the prospect.

Keep reading

Former MLB prospect sues White Sox for millions over COVID-19 vaccine injury

An awful vaccine side effect has allegedly sidelined a baseball player for the rest of his life.

Isaiah Carranza was drafted by the Chicago White Sox in 2018 but never made it to the major leagues. Now, Carranza is suing his former organization, saying it denied his vaccine injury after he was “coerced” into getting the shot.

Carranza played two years in High-A, the third-highest level of minor league baseball in the United States. However, 2022 was the last time he appeared in a game, and the former pitcher has since alleged that team officials warned him he would be “blacklisted” if he didn’t get a COVID-19 vaccine.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Carranza claimed if he did not get two doses, his organization would not release him from his contract so that he could pursue other teams. At the same time, he was allegedly told he had “no prospects of moving up” within the White Sox’s organization.

After getting the Pfizer vaccine, Carranza says he soon began suffering “extreme dizziness, nausea, near-fainting, and wildly fluctuating heart rate,” but the team told him it was simply dehydration, anxiety, and “rookie nerves.”

Carranza also allegedly began experiencing severe pain and dysfunction in his pitching arm.

“After receiving the vaccine, Plaintiff suffered severe adverse health reactions with little to no support from Defendants, who denied him necessary accommodations,” the lawsuit said, according to Newsmax.

Carranza also claimed that the injury impaired his ability to throw at a professional level and essentially ended his career. He is reportedly seeking $19 million in damages and has an estimated $557,000 price tag in future medical expenses.

The MLB did not have an official vaccine mandate but encouraged players to get vaccinated through its union and the league.

Carranza’s legal team said on its website that minor league players lacked union representation and the financial security to safely speak out against the “condition of employment.”

Keep reading

Transparency: Suing Schools That Hide Trans Kids’ Identities From Parents

A few weeks before Christmas in 2022, Amber Lavigne was cleaning her 13-year-old’s bedroom when she stumbled upon her daughter’s secret: a chest binder. She learned that Autumn had been wearing the garment, which girls use to flatten their breasts to achieve a masculine appearance, for about two months at school in Maine, where she had adopted a boy’s name, Leo, and was using he/him pronouns.

It was the first of two chest binders Lavigne found that had been provided to her eighth-grade daughter by a social worker at the Great Salt Bay Community School, according to a federal lawsuit Lavigne filed in 2023, which is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Her lawsuit alleges that the public school not only aided and abetted Autumn’s gender transition but also hid the information from her parents.

“I think it’s important for parents to know that this is occurring in our public schools because I don’t think many parents believe that it’s as bad as it really is,” Lavigne said on a recent podcast. “When I was a kid, one of the first things I heard about adults is if any adult asks you as a child to keep a secret, there’s something wrong with that adult, and you need to come tell me immediately.”

“And now, I mean, it’s like we’re in upside-down land.”

The Maine lawsuit and others like it raise one of the most contentious issues in the broader conflict over transgender policies: whether a parent’s constitutional right to direct their children’s education and medical care extends to a circumstance that society has never grappled with until the past decade or so – a youth’s rejection of their biological sex, adoption of a new name and matching pronouns, and assertion of a new gender identity. And to what extent children who are transitioning or exploring gender options have the right to confidentiality if they worry about rejection and hostility at home.

Keep reading

New Jersey Democrat Assemblywoman Sponsors Vulgar ‘F**K ICE’ Bill to Sue Federal Immigration Agents

Democrat New Jersey Assemblywoman Katie Brennan has co-sponsored a bill called the “Fight Unlawful Conduct and Keep Individuals and Communities Empowered Act,” or “F-CK ICE” Act.

The legislation aims to make it easier for individuals to file civil lawsuits against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents for alleged constitutional violations during immigration enforcement operations.

A video clip of Brennan promoting the bill has gone viral on X, as conservatives blast it and the unhinged left cheers.

In the footage, Brennan smirks while explaining the bill’s “spicy name” and its serious intent to “sue the hell out of ICE” for what she calls unlawful conduct.

“Because right now, it’s really hard to hold them accountable or to press any criminal charges despite all of their unlawful conduct,” Brennan says in the video. “No, we’re gonna sue the hell out of them if we can.”

The bill was introduced on February 24 and is co-sponsored by Brennan and Assemblyman Ravi Bhalla, the former mayor of Hoboken.

An identical version has been introduced in the Senate.

According to the official summary from the New Jersey Legislature, the act “permits civil action for violations of US Constitution related to immigration enforcement.”

It would allow New Jersey residents to sue federal immigration officials in state courts for monetary damages, including punitive and psychological damages, attorney’s fees, and other relief if their constitutional rights are violated.

The bill requires the use of body-worn cameras and the provision of identification upon request by agents.

Brennan, a first-term assemblywoman representing parts of Hudson County including Jersey City, has defended the bill’s name and purpose.

In statements reported by NJ.com, she said the measure “speaks for itself,” adding, “There have to be real consequences if ICE breaks the law.”

The Ridgewood Blog, a conservative New Jersey outlet, called it “a new low for the Garden State,” pointing out that ICE agents in New Jersey recently arrested migrants with convictions for child-sex crimes.

The bill has been referred to the Assembly Oversight, Reform, and Federal Relations Committee, with a potential vote expected soon before heading to Governor Mikie Sherrill’s desk.

Keep reading

New Jersey Cities Must Explain Marijuana Business Denials, Court Says

New Jersey’s cannabis industry scored a victory Tuesday when a state appellate panel ruled that municipalities must explain why they deny requests for local support to open dispensaries, a decision that could have implications for legal weed retailers statewide.

The 23-page decision rejects an argument by the Burlington City Council that it is allowed to reject those requests without explaining why. The council was sued by the owners of a planned cannabis dispensary after council members denied the owners’ request for a resolution of local support, a document required to open recreational cannabis dispensaries in New Jersey.

“While the City Council was permitted to consider all relevant evidence and has wide discretion under its general police powers to deny the issuance of an ROS, we hold that the City Council has to provide a discernible reason for its determination,” reads the ruling by Judge Lisa Perez Friscia.

Tuesday’s decision rejects a lower court judge’s ruling that required Burlington to issue the resolution of support to the owners of the planned dispensary, called Higher Breed. The newer ruling requires the Burlington council to reconsider Higher Breed’s request for support and then issue a resolution that provides a basis for the council’s decision.

A request for comment from Higher Breed’s attorneys was not returned.

New Jersey voters opted in 2020 to legalize cannabis, but the state’s legalization law allowed towns to opt out of cannabis sales, and about 70 percent of towns did so. The Cannabis Regulatory Commission, which is tasked with approving cannabis retail licenses, requires prospective license holders to obtain a resolution of local support from the town where they plan to operate.

In December 2023, Higher Breed, owned by Jim and Karen Waltz, applied to the Burlington City Council for a resolution of local support for a store on East Route 130. After hearing from a real estate broker who does not live in Burlington and claimed the property’s owner was “dishonest” and owed him a real estate commission, the council ultimately rejected Higher Breed’s request for a resolution of local support. Higher Breed then sued.

Keep reading

Woman Sues After Prison Staff Decided To Use Her as Rape ‘Bait’

When staff at the Logan Correctional Center learned a prison counselor may have been repeatedly sexually assaulting a female inmate, they did the sane and humane thing and immediately removed her from his reach while opening an investigation into the alleged assailant.

Just kidding. What they really did was decide to use the inmate as rape “bait.”

The idea was that when the counselor tried again, a prison investigator would jump down from a hiding space in the ceiling to stop the attack.

The plan didn’t work. The inmate was assaulted again.

And she has since sued, alleging cruel and unusual punishment.

‘No Reasonable Official Could Have Thought It Proper To Act as They Did’

The case came before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit last fall, on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

Prison counselor Richard MacLeod “repeatedly sexually assaulted” Andrea Nielsen while she was imprisoned at Illinois’ Logan Correctional Center, writes Judge David Hamilton in the appeals court’s February 26 opinion. But rather than “protecting Nielsen from further assaults” when her cellmate reported the abuse to prison investigator Todd Sexton and Warden Margaret Burke, the pair “formulated an outrageous plan to use her as unwitting ‘bait’ to try to catch MacLeod in the act.”

“The plan was for Sexton to stay late a few times, crawl around in the ceiling above the room MacLeod used to sexually assault Nielsen, and wait to jump down and intervene,” notes Hamilton. “The plan failed, and MacLeod assaulted her again.”

Nielsen went on to file a civil lawsuit against Burke, Sexton, and MacLeod. A jury found all three liable and ordered them to pay Nielsen $19.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

Two of the defendants—Burke and Sexton—subsequently appealed.

A three-judge panel from the 7th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny them qualified immunity and to deny their motion that there was insufficient evidence for a guilty finding. “No reasonable official could have thought it proper to act as they did,” states the opinion.

But the appeals court also partially reversed the lower court’s ruling and ordered a new trial on damages—but not liability—for Sexton and Burke, citing “erroneous exclusion of evidence” at trial among other things. So, they’re still guilty, but a new trial will be necessary to determine how much money they’re on the hook for.

Keep reading

Detroit Cop SUES City After Suspension for Calling Border Patrol on Venezuelan Illegal

A veteran Detroit police sergeant has filed a federal lawsuit against her department after being slapped with a 30-day unpaid suspension for contacting U.S. Border Patrol during a routine traffic stop that uncovered an undocumented Venezuelan migrant.

This case spotlights the absurd priorities in blue cities, where enforcing immigration laws gets you punished, even as Americans demand more cooperation to secure the borders.

Sgt. Denise Wallet, a 27-year department veteran, pulled over the driver on February 9, 2026, in downtown Detroit. The man presented a fake driver’s license and admitted he was in the country illegally without proper identification.

Leaked body camera footage captures Wallet explaining her decision to seek federal assistance. “I don’t want to be the reason that somebody who shouldn’t be getting away gets away, exactly, and then you find out (laughs). It turns out he was Pablo Escobar Jr.,” she said, underscoring the potential risks of letting unidentified individuals slip through.

Wallet consulted her superior before acting, with her lieutenant advising her to call Border Patrol.

Border Patrol agents arrived, confirmed the man’s illegal status, and took him into custody. But instead of commendation, Wallet faced discipline under the Detroit Police Department’s “bias-free policing” policy, which bars officers from enforcing federal immigration laws or contacting agencies like CBP for identification purposes.

The policy claims such actions amount to “differential treatment” based on perceived ethnicity or background. Wallet’s attorney, Solomon Radner, fired back in the lawsuit, arguing no policy was violated and that her due process rights were trampled.

Keep reading

Mexico’s Sheinbaum Weighs Legal Action After Musk Alleges Cartel Ties

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she is considering legal action after tech billionaire Elon Musk alleged on social media that she was taking orders from drug cartels.

Speaking at a Feb. 24 news conference in Mexico City, Sheinbaum said government lawyers were reviewing the matter.

“We’re considering whether to take some legal action,” she said.

“The lawyers are looking into it, but what matters to me is what the people say, honestly.”

Musk’s allegation of Sheinbaum’s cartel subservience followed the capture and killing of Jalisco New Generation Cartel (JNGC) leader Nemesio Oseguera, known as “El Mencho,” by Mexican security forces.

In his post on X, Musk responded to a 2025 video of Sheinbaum discussing cartel violence and saying that returning to a war against the cartels is “not an option” because it would mean extrajudicial killings that are “outside the framework of the law.” She added that military force against the cartels would also be counterproductive because it would trigger retaliatory violence that would only “increase homicides in Mexico.”

Responding to those remarks, Musk alleged that she was “saying what her cartel bosses tell her to say.”

“Let’s just say that their punishment for disobedience is a little worse than a ‘performance improvement plan,’” Musk wrote.

He did not provide evidence to support his claims.

Sheinbaum could face difficulty suing Musk for defamation in the United States because of strong legal protections for free speech. To prevail, she would need to show that Musk knowingly made a false statement or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Tesla, Musk’s auto company, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Keep reading

LA County Sues Roblox Over False Child Safety Claims and Lack of Age Verification

Los Angeles County filed a lawsuit against Roblox, alleging the platform has built a system that leaves children exposed to grooming because it does not go far enough in checking user IDs to prove their age.

The suit names the company for public nuisance and violations of California’s false advertising law.

We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.

The complaint is direct: “Roblox portrays its platform as a safe and appropriate place for children to play. In reality, and as Roblox well knows, the design of its platform makes children easy prey for pedophiles.”

If you weren’t aware of how big Roblox is and why this is important, Roblox serves roughly 144 million daily active users. That’s more than both Fortnite and the entire userbase of the Steam platform combined.

The platform also lets people create and play games, chat through customizable avatars, and spend real money on virtual currency.

LA County’s suit argues Roblox has consistently failed to moderate user-generated content, enforce its own age restrictions, or honestly disclose the risks predators pose to children using the service.

There is no doubt the platform’s moderation gaps have attracted scrutiny for years, and that the platform has had issues with grooming of minors, but the LA lawsuit is the latest in a pattern of governments and researchers documenting the same problem Roblox has repeatedly said it’s addressing, and the latest attempt to mandate digital ID checks.

Roblox rejected the suit’s allegations. A company spokesman said the platform was built “with safety at its core” and pointed to existing protections: “We have advanced safeguards that monitor our platform for harmful content and communications, and users cannot send or receive images via chat, avoiding one of the most prevalent opportunities for misuse seen elsewhere online.”

The company added that it takes action against rule violators and cooperates with law enforcement, closing with: “There is no finish line when it comes to protecting kids and, while no system can be perfect, our commitment to safety never ends.”

The false advertising angle is what is most important to note. LA isn’t suing Roblox over what it collects or who can see it. The county is suing because the company told parents the platform was safe for kids while allegedly knowing otherwise.

Keep reading

Nearly Half of Jury Pool Dismissed in Elon Musk Trial After Prospective Jurors Openly Admit They ‘Hate’ Him

Nearly half of the potential jurors in a class-action lawsuit against Elon Musk were dismissed during selection after admitting they could not remain impartial, with many outright saying that they “hate” him.

The case, playing out in a liberal stronghold, really displays the biases against conservatives within the judicial system.

Jury selection for the trial began this week in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, presided over by Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Mediaite reports:

Breyer, a Clinton appointee and younger brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, began jury selection by commenting to the lawyers for both sides that Musk had achieved a level of fame that was “like the President of the United States,” and even if they “search the entire country,” it would probably be nearly impossible to find someone who did not have some sort of opinion about Musk.

“As a public figure he will excite strong views, and for him in particular, people have strong views,” Breyer added. “The question is, and courts are very clear about this, is whether they can set them aside.”

Finding nine jurors who could put their opinions about Musk aside to be properly fair and impartial took over five hours.

“As a public figure he will excite strong views, and for him in particular, people have strong views,” Breyer said. “The question is, and courts are very clear about this, is whether they can set them aside.”

Out of a pool of 93 prospective jurors, 40 were immediately excused after raising their hands to indicate they could not set aside their personal biases against Musk.

Juror questionnaires also revealed deep-seated animosity.

Keep reading