Tag: lawsuits

PARENTAL RIGHTS OUTRAGE! Illinois Mother Sues School District, Alleges Officials SECRETLY Socially Transitioned Child After Mental Health Crisis

An Illinois mother has filed a federal lawsuit accusing Community Unit School District 300 of secretly socially transitioning her child at school, withholding key information from her, and cutting her out of a “gender support” plan even after the student had been hospitalized for suicidal ideation.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, names Community Unit School District 300 and Superintendent Dr. Martina Smith as defendants. 

The mother, identified in the complaint only as S.K., alleges that the Algonquin-based district violated her constitutional rights by allowing school officials to make major identity and mental-health-related decisions involving her minor child without parental consent.

“This case challenges a public school district’s policies, practices, and customs of subjecting minor students to psychological and identity-based interventions, while deliberately excluding their parents from participation, consent, and even knowledge,” the complaint states.

The complaint alleges that District 300 officials “socially transitioned minor students at school,” developed “gender support” plans, coordinated with mental-health providers, and withheld material information from parents. 

The lawsuit argues that these actions were “not routine educational judgments,” but rather “state-directed psychological intervention into a minor’s identity, mental health, and familial relationships.”

According to the lawsuit, school personnel began using an alternate name and pronouns for S.K.’s child, T.K., in certain classes in 2022 without informing the mother. 

Keep reading

Rubio Is Sued Over Visa Bans on Foreign Censorship Supporters

A nonprofit that supports online speech restrictions is suing the Trump administration for sanctioning people who pushed platforms to delete speech. The case landed in a D.C. courtroom on Wednesday and the irony runs deep.

The Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR) wants a federal judge to block a State Department visa policy announced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in May 2025.

The policy allows the US to deny entry, revoke visas, or deport foreign nationals the government considers “complicit in censoring Americans.”

CITR filed for a preliminary injunction, and Chief Judge James Boasberg heard oral arguments on May 13 in Coalition for Independent Technology Research v. Rubio.

The five people sanctioned under this policy in December 2025 are not random academics. Thierry Breton helped build the EU’s Digital Services Act, which compels American tech companies to delete speech Europeans find objectionable.

Imran Ahmed runs the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which has campaigned to get accounts banned from platforms.

Clare Melford runs the Global Disinformation Index, which compiled advertiser blacklists to financially punish news outlets it decided were spreading “disinformation.”

Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg co-founded HateAid, a German group pushing legal action against speech it calls “digital violence.”

Rubio accused them of leading “organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”

CITR’s attorney Carrie DeCell argued that “the government is subjecting CITR members and other non-citizens to exclusion, detention and deportation simply for reporting on speech on social media and the harms that might arise from it, and advocating for different content moderation policies and other policies that might govern internet platforms.”

Keep reading

Iowa Hospital Accused of Illegally Harvesting Air Force Veteran’s Organs, Skin, Eyes and Tissue – Daughters Sue for Malpractice and Emotional Distress

The daughters of a 69-year-old U.S. Air Force veteran have filed a federal lawsuit against an Iowa hospital, claiming staff improperly harvested their father’s organs, skin, eyes, and tissue without his prior consent or any authorization from his next of kin.

The lawsuit claims the harvesting was done without even attempting to contact his children.

Martin Gillespie, a proud Air Force veteran described by family as a loving father of three and grandfather of eight, was pronounced dead on April 1 at Alegent Health Community Memorial Hospital in Missouri Valley.

According to the lawsuit, obtained by Law & Crime, Gillespie never authorized any anatomical gifts or organ donation during his lifetime.

The complaint alleges that hospital staff made “no attempt to contact” Gillespie’s next of kin, his daughters, Christina Gubbels and Daun Stoddard, before referring his body to the Iowa Donor Network.

Hours later, on the same day, the Iowa Donor Network harvested his organs, skin tissue, and eyes.

Gillespie’s body was then transported to Hennessey Funeral Home in Missouri Valley for cremation.

Keep reading

Lawsuits Challenging Spanberger’s Virginia ‘Assault Firearms’ Gun Grab Pour In

Multiple Second Amendment rights advocates are suing Virginia’s police superintendent after Gov. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., signed into law legislation banning many semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines.

The new law, effective July 1, “criminalizes the purchase, sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of a wide range of commonly owned semiautomatic handguns, shotguns, and rifles — including the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America,” said the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the plaintiffs suing Virginia. It also “prohibits the purchase, barter, transfer, and importation” of any magazine that holds more than 15 rounds, the organization noted.

Democrat state Sen. Saddam Azlan Salim, a politician from Bangladesh who is a driving force behind efforts to strip constitutional rights away from Americans, authored the bill.

The NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and two NRA members filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the law; the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed a lawsuit in a Virginia county court; multiple firearm retailers, gun ranges, and other organizations filed a lawsuit in state court, and U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon promised the Department of Justice would file one as well.

All lawsuits name Jeffrey S. Katz, superintendent of the Virginia State Police, as the defendant. The NRA lawsuit also names Goochland County Commonwealth Attorney John L. Lumpkins Jr. and Sheriff Steven Creasey, along with Prince William County Commonwealth Attorney Amy Ashworth and Sheriff Glendell Hill. Justin McDonald and Anthony Groeneveld, plaintiffs in the NRA suit, are residents of Goochland and Prince William, respectively, and are also members of the NRA, FPC, and SAF.

The NRA lawsuit appeals to U.S. Supreme Court precedent in both New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and District of Columbia v. Heller (as applied to the states through McDonald v. City of Chicago) to argue the gun and magazine bans are unconstitutional. “By prohibiting Plaintiffs from acquiring common semiautomatic firearms and ammunition magazines,” the suit argues, “Virginia has prevented them from ‘keeping and bearing Arms’ within the meaning of the Amendment’s text. As a result, ‘[t]o justify its regulation, the government … must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’”

Because ownership of the kinds of firearms and magazines banned by the new bill is widespread in Virginia, the new legislation necessarily cannot meet the standards set by historical practice, which, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, requires that the banned weapon be “both dangerous and unusual,” according to the lawsuit (emphasis original).

Keep reading

Netanyahu: We Will Sue NYT for Exposé Alleging Sexual Torture in Israeli Prisons

Israel is planning to sue The New York Times over a shocking report that Israeli prison officials are sexually torturing Palestinian prisoners.

Opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof’s 3,500-word exposé graphically details mind-boggling cruelty, including genital mutilation and using dogs to rape prisoners.

Such a lawsuit won’t likely succeed in U.S. courts because the Constitution forbids it. Federal law generally forbids recognizing defamation judgments in foreign courts.

The exposé appeared one day before the Times reprised an official Israeli report that detailed Hamas’ rape and sexual torture of Israeli prisoners and hostages during and after the October 7, 2023 terror raid.

The Story

Palestinians told Kristof about sexual violence against men, women, and children by myriad Israeli assailants: “soldiers, settlers, interrogators in the Shin Bet internal security agency and, above all, prison guards.”

Evidence does not show that leaders ordered the rapes, Kristof explained. But a UN report explained that sexual torture is “one of Israel’s ‘standard operating procedures’ and ‘a major element in the ill treatment of Palestinians.’” And the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor has reported that “systematic sexual violence” is “widely practiced as part of an organized state policy.”

Kristof spoke to 14 victims. 

A freelance journalist, Sami al-Sai, 46, told Kristof that Israeli guards raped him with a rubber baton and then a carrot. A sadistic woman guard, he told Kristof, “grabbed him by the penis and testicles and joked, ‘These are mine,’ and then squeezed until he screamed from pain.”

Noting that American tax money has made the U.S. government complicit in the sex crimes, Kristof also detailed a case from the Euro-Med report. It described the repeated rape of a 42-year-old woman, which Israeli soldiers photographed and said would be released if “she did not cooperate with Israeli intelligence.”

Yet abuse, Kristof reported, went beyond — way beyond — rape.

“Many reported that they often had their genitals yanked or were beaten on the testicles. Hand-held metal detectors were used to probe between men’s naked legs and then smashed into their private parts; some men had to have their testicles amputated by doctors after beatings, according to the Euro-Med monitor,” Kristof reported.

A farmer told Kristof that Israeli guards raped him three times with a metal baton. He invited the third assault by asking for a pen and paper to write a complaint. 

Keep reading

Jacksonville officials maintained illegal registry of gun owners, violating state’s firearm preemption laws

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has filed a lawsuit seeking a $5 million civil penalty against the City of Jacksonville, alleging that the municipality maintained an illegal registry of law-abiding gun owners.

The legal action stems from “log books” kept between 2023 and 2025 by city personnel, which reportedly recorded the personal information and firearm details of individuals carrying weapons into government buildings like City Hall.

Uthmeier argues that this practice violates Florida’s preemption laws, which prohibit local governments from creating firearm registries — a restriction designed to protect the privacy and Second Amendment (2A) rights of citizens.

While a prior local investigation by the State Attorney’s Office found no criminal intent, the attorney general’s lawsuit contends that city management was complicit in maintaining the registry, thereby triggering the multimillion-dollar fine permitted under state statute.

“We are taking the City of Jacksonville to court for knowingly and willfully keeping an illegal gun registry in violation of Florida law,” Uthmeier asserted.

Keep reading

Appeals court spares Trump from paying $83 million defamation award to E Jean Carroll — for now

President Donald Trump won’t have to pay an $83 million defamation award to a longtime advice columnist until the U.S. Supreme Court gets a chance to review the case or reject an appeal, according to a court entry Tuesday.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a request by one of Trump’s lawyers that it let the president delay the payment to E. Jean Carroll, though it required that Trump post a $7.4 million bond to cover any additional interest costs, a request Carroll’s attorney had made.

The appeals court late last month refused Trump’s request for a rare meeting of the full 2nd Circuit to hear an appeal of a three-judge panel’s affirmance of the January 2024 verdict.

Afterward, Trump attorney Justin D. Smith asked the 2nd Circuit to stay the effect of its decision upholding the award so that Trump would not be forced to pay the judgment before the high court has a chance to consider an appeal.

Smith said last week there was a “fair prospect” that the Supreme Court will find in favor of Trump, who has called Carroll’s claims first made publicly in 2019 that she was sexually attacked by Trump in a Manhattan luxury department store dressing room in spring 1996 a “made up scam.”

The $83 million award to Carroll, 82, came from a jury that briefly heard Trump testify and observed his animated behavior for several days.

In upholding the verdict, a 2nd Circuit panel wrote last September that Trump continued his attacks against Carroll for at least five years, making them “more extreme and frequent as the trial approached.”

“He also continued these same attacks during the trial itself,” the appeals court said. “In one such statement, issued two days into the trial, Trump proclaimed that he would continue to defame Carroll ‘a thousand times.’ ”

The jury had been instructed to accept the findings of a jury that in May 2023 awarded Carroll $5 million after concluding Trump sexually abused her in the department store and then defamed her after she published her account of it in a 2019 memoir.

Trump is challenging the $83 million award on several grounds, asserting “absolute immunity” for comments he made while president as he disavowed knowing Carroll and attacked her motivations, saying they were politically driven or arose from a desire to promote her memoir.

Keep reading

Parents Sue OpenAI After Son Fatally Overdosed Following ChatGPT Drug Advice.

 WHAT HAPPENED: A Texas couple has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPTprovided their son with unsafe advice about drug use, leading to his fatal overdose in 2025. The family alleges that ChatGPT recommended a combination of kratom and Xanax, which proved lethal for their 19-year-old son, Sam Nelson.

 DETAIL: The lawsuit claims the teen repeatedly used ChatGPT for guidance on various substances and that the chatbot gradually shifted from refusing harmful requests to offering specific recommendations on drug intake and recovery. His parents, Leila Turner-Scott and Angus Scott, argue that the AI platform dispensed dangerous advice that it was unqualified to provide and failed to maintain adequate safety protections. The suit, filed in a California state court, seeks to hold OpenAI responsible for wrongful death and negligence, alleging their son would still be alive if stronger safeguards had been in place. OpenAI has not publicly responded in detail to the lawsuit, but it has previously stated that ChatGPT is designed to discourage harmful behavior and direct users to professional help. The case adds to a growing number of lawsuits accusing AI chatbots of contributing to dangerous or violent conduct, such as mass shootings and mental health crises, including recorded suicides.

 KEY QUOTE: “The chatbot is capable of stopping a conversation when it’s told to or when it’s programmed to… And they took away the programming that did that.” – Leila Turner-Scott, the victim’s mother.

 IMPACT: The case highlights growing concerns over the potential for AI platforms to provide unverified medical advice, raising questions about liability and the need for stricter safeguards. It also underscores broader debates about the role of AI and whether teenagers, the mentally ill, and other vulnerable people should have unsupervised access to it.

Keep reading

11th Circuit Denies Rehearing in President Trump’s MEGA RICO Lawsuit Against Crooked Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and the Russia Hoax Cabal

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has just DENIED President Donald Trump’s petition for rehearing en banc in his landmark lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, James Comey, the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, and the rest of the Deep State operatives who orchestrated the greatest political hoax in American history, the Russia collusion lie that stole years from Trump’s first term and targeted him with endless lawfare.

The court’s denial of both panel rehearing and en banc review means the outrageous nearly $1 million sanction slapped on Trump and his former attorney, Alina Habba, stands.

In March 2022, President Trump filed it in federal court in Miami, naming Hillary Clinton, James Comey, the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, and a host of other co-conspirators in a sprawling racketeering scheme to fabricate the Russia collusion narrative, spy on his campaign, and derail his presidency.

Trump asked for triple damages of expenses and losses of more than $24 million.

In April 2022, President Trump requested the Clinton-appointed judge overseeing his Russiagate case against Hillary Clinton and others be removed from the case due to obvious conflicts of interest.

Somehow, Clinton-appointed Judge Donald Middlebrooks and Judge Ryon McCabe received this case.

Middlebrooks refused to recuse himself from the case despite an obvious conflict of interest being that he was appointed by Hillary Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton.

Judge Donald Middlebrooks DISMISSED President Trump’s lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and several FBI-DOJ crooks who manufactured the Russia Collusion hoax to influence the 2016 election and then to bring down his presidency in a government coup.

Judge Middlebrooks also threatened Trump’s attorneys with “consequences” for daring to file the case against Hillary Clinton.

Keep reading

OpenAI sued over ChatGPT’s alleged role in guiding FSU shooter

OpenAI is being sued by the family of a victim killed in the April 2025 mass shooting at Florida State University that left two people dead. The lawsuit alleges that OpenAI’s ChatGPT enabled the attack.

Vandana Joshi, the widow of Tiru Chabba, who was killed alongside the university dining director Robert Morales, filed the federal lawsuit against OpenAI in Florida on Sunday.

The complaint also names Phoenix Ikner, the man accused in the shooting, as a defendant, citing his “extensive conversations” with ChatGPT. The suit says that OpenAI failed to effectively detect a threat in ChatGPT’s conversations with Ikner, claiming the chatbot “either defectively failed to connect the dots or else was never properly designed to recognize the threat.”

According to the complaint, Ikner, then a student at FSU, shared with ChatGPT images of firearms he had acquired. The chatbot then allegedly explained how to use them, “telling him the Glock had no safety, that it was meant to be fired ‘quick to use under stress’ and advising him to keep his finger off the trigger until he was ready to shoot.”

The suit said Ikner began his attack at FSU by following the instructions.

At one point, the lawsuit alleges, ChatGPT said that it’s much more likely for a shooting to gain national attention “if children are involved, even 2-3 victims can draw more attention.” Later, on the day of the shooting, the lawsuit says, Ikner asked about what “the legal process, sentencing, and incarceration outlook” would be.

Keep reading