Tag: lawsuits

CA Gov. Gavin Newsom Signs ‘No Kings Act,’ Making It Easier to Sue ICE Agents

Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 21 bills into law on Tuesday, one of which, the “No Kings Act,” makes it easier for left-wing migrant activists and others to target Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

One of the bills attempts to impose a 25-percent tax on private detention centers, another purports to ban law enforcement from using electric shock gloves, and another has a provision that makes it easier to sue federal immigration officers for doing their job.

“Trump has put his political interests above the health, safety and livelihood of American families,” Newsom said in a statement upon signing the bills, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. “California is taking action to strengthen transparency, accountability, and oversight around immigration enforcement in our state. This is about stepping up where the federal government has failed our communities.”

“We will continue protecting our people, upholding the rule of law, and making clear that if the federal government operates in California, we will hold them accountable,” Newsom added.

Radical left-wing state Senator Scott Wiener (D), who sponsored the bill, celebrated the signing.

“ICE and Border Patrol have terrorized California communities with impunity,” Wiener claimed. “That ends today.”

He continued:

When federal agents act lawlessly, they should be held accountable the same as any other lawbreaker. But for too long, a loophole in the law has shielded them from accountability. The No Kings Act provides long overdue accountability to end the impunity powering ICE and Border Patrol’s terror campaign.

It is likely that some of the provisions in these various bills won’t pass legal muster for their attempt to interfere in federal law enforcement matters.

Other provisions include requirements to disclose 911 and emergency response records, the creation of a so-called “detainees’ bill of rights,” a ban on the use of flash-bang devices, and a ban on former ICE officers being hired by state law enforcement agencies.

The Chronicle reported in August that ICE had arrested nearly 50,000 migrants across the state, some 6,800 of them in Southern California and 11,500 in Los Angeles.

California has opposed the Trump administration’s voter-mandated efforts to institute mass deportations of illegal migrants after the state used migrants for years to pad state tax subsidies, especially where it concerned the fattening of education budgets as millions of migrant children flooded the state’s school systems.

Keep reading

In Shadow of Pending Lawsuit, CDC Again Recommends COVID Vaccines for Infants and Young Kids

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) quietly reinstated its July 2025 COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, including recommending the vaccine for “off-label” use among infants and children, Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., reported.

According to the CDC’s updated webpage, the agency now recommends the COVID-19 shot for all adults ages 18 and older and for children ages 6 months to 17 years who are moderately to severely immunocompromised.

For children not at high risk — including males ages 12-24, who have the highest risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis — the CDC recommends the vaccine based on shared clinical decision-making.

The updated recommendations conflict with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for the vaccines.

There are currently no FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and adults younger than 64. For those younger than 65, the vaccines are only FDA-approved for those at high risk of COVID-19 illness, at various ages depending on the vaccine.

The CDC acknowledges that use of the vaccine in that age group would be an “off-label” use.

Latest changes may be tied to court order in ongoing lawsuit

In May 2025, the U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the CDC would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children 6 months and older and healthy pregnant women.

In September 2025, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) made the changes official when members voted that for people ages 6 months to 64 years, COVID-19 vaccination should be based on “individual-based decision-making.”

However, a court-ordered stay in March 2026 froze those recommendations. To comply with that order, the CDC is now reverting to its early 2025 recommendations.

The court-ordered stay, issued by U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy, stemmed from an ongoing lawsuit filed in July 2025 by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and several other medical groups.

The groups sued Kennedy and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women. They amended their lawsuit several times in response to new HHS and CDC policies and recommendations.

The U.S. Department of Justice is appealing Murphy’s ruling on behalf of Kennedy and HHS. Oral arguments are scheduled for Oct. 6 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.

Keep reading

Attorney Who Sued Hospitals in 40 States Over Ivermectin Tells Ron Johnson: 69 of 72 Patients Who Received Ivermectin Survived When Courts Forced Treatment — All 140 Patients Denied the Drug Died

Attorney Ralph Lorigo delivered striking testimony Monday during Sen. Ron Johnson’s roundtable examining COVID-era hospital protocols, telling the Wisconsin Republican that he represented 212 families across 40 states who went to court seeking alternative treatment for critically ill COVID patients.

Johnson convened the September 28 roundtable, titled “COVID-19 Hospital Protocols: Real Stories from Real People,” to hear testimony from patients, family members, doctors, nurses and others about their experiences inside hospitals during the pandemic. According to Sen. Johnson’s office, the event was the first in Johnson’s series of COVID-related hearings and roundtables devoted entirely to hospital protocols.

Lorigo told the panel that of the 212 families he represented, there were 72 cases in which he prevailed and ivermectin was ultimately administered.

According to Lorigo, only three of those 72 patients died.

“In all, I represented 212 families across 40 states,” Lorigo said. “I won 72 where ivermectin was actually given. Only 3 people died.”

That means 69 of the 72 patients Lorigo identified survived, a survival rate of approximately 95.8 percent among that group.

Lorigo then described what he said happened in the remaining cases.

Keep reading

Delaware Judge Orders Fox Corp. to Dump Hundreds of Files on Murdoch, Deleted Texts, Phone Hacking, and the Dominion Settlement In Massive Shareholder Lawsuit

A Delaware judge has just ordered Fox Corporation to hand over a mountain of internal records in a long-running shareholder lawsuit aimed at Rupert Murdoch, his son Lachlan, and other Fox directors. The files cover phone hacking, board minutes, emails, and the deletion of Rupert Murdoch’s text messages.

The order landed last week from Vice Chancellor Bonnie David. Fox fought to keep the material sealed. The judge sided with the plaintiffs across the board.

According to NPR, the haul includes roughly 700 documents that mention “phone hacking,” years of Fox board meeting minutes, emails from former Ford CEO and longtime Fox director Jacques Nasser’s Ford accounts, and a list of every email address ever used by Nasser or Rupert Murdoch.

Shareholders’ lawyers will also get sealed records from the still-pending Smartmatic case that deal with what the court calls Murdoch’s “spoliation” of records, legal speak for wiping texts.

The case was filed about three years ago by five New York City public-employee pension funds and Oregon’s public employee retirement system.

Those are Democrat-run, taxpayer-backed institutions using Delaware corporate law to try to pin Fox’s legal bills on the Murdochs personally.

The Associated Press reported earlier that the same funds accuse Murdoch and other Fox leaders of ignoring “red flags” after 2020.

Keep reading

Federal appeals court orders Trump admin to release Los Angeles homeless funds

federal appeals court on Thursday ordered the Department of Housing and Urban Development to release federal funding that has already been allocated to homeless service organizations in Los Angeles but was not distributed. 

The court order was in response to the Trump administration’s attempt to oversee how homeless service organizations in Los Angeles can seek millions of dollars in federal funding, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angles Homeless Services Authority was seeking up to $239 million on behalf of dozens of organizations, but HUD suspended LAHSA in June, citing a record of mismanagement, and directed the groups to apply directly through the federal government.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday largely upheld a district court ruling in a 2-1 split, which restored LAHSA as the applicant for the organizations.

The court determined that HUD “chose to suspend LAHSA at a time when it would leave the Los Angeles region particularly vulnerable” with ill effects on “vulnerable populations, critical programs and ongoing services.” 

“It is likely that its plan is unworkable and, at this late stage, extremely difficult if not virtually impossible to implement,” the decision added.

The new deadline for LAHSA to apply for HUD funding is Oct. 14. The original deadline was the end of August.

Keep reading

U.S. Beekeepers Sue USDA, Alleging Imported “Organic” Honey Misleads Consumers and Violates Federal Law

Four major U.S. commercial beekeeping operations have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), alleging the agency allows imported honey to carry the USDA organic seal through certification pathways unavailable to American producers [1].

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington by operations based in Washington, South Dakota, and Texas, according to the plaintiffs [1].

The lawsuit claims the practice misleads consumers, undermines domestic beekeepers, and violates federal organic law by creating a double standard for organic honey certification [1]. The beekeepers are seeking a court order to halt the alleged false labeling rather than monetary damages, according to the complaint [1].

Allegations of Certification Double Standard

The suit alleges that USDA organic standards require bees to forage within a 1.8-mile radius of certified organic land, a rule that makes large-scale organic honey production nearly impossible for most U.S. beekeepers [1]. Consequently, only four certified organic honey operations exist in the United States, all located in Hawaii, according to the plaintiffs [1].

This regulatory burden stands in contrast to the situation abroad, where foreign producers, particularly in Brazil, operate under less stringent rules that allow them to bypass USDA standards, the lawsuit alleges [1].

Experts note that the vast majority of apiary locations within the United States are not able to comply with organic regulations as currently written, and most locations that do conform tend to be in areas where bee forage is extremely limited [2]. As a result, little certified organic honey is currently being produced within the continental U.S., according to those familiar with the industry [2].

Imported Honey Dominates Market

Approximately 80% of honey sold in the U.S. is imported, according to OrganicEye, a nonprofit organization that monitors the organic industry [1]. U.S. beekeepers sold 116 million pounds of honey in 2025, down 14% from the prior year, while organic imports exceeded 78 million pounds during the same period, according to the lawsuit [1].

The complaint further states that roughly 60 million pounds of domestic honey remained unsold, with some producers holding up to three years’ worth of inventory [1].

This market imbalance has created significant financial strain for domestic producers, who report difficulty competing with cheaper imported products [1]. The situation mirrors broader trends in the food industry, where imported products can be labeled in ways that obscure their origin and undermine domestic producers [3].

Loopholes in Certification Process

The lawsuit highlights specific loopholes in the certification process that allegedly allow foreign honey to bear the USDA organic seal. One such pathway is group certification, which permits large agricultural organizations to certify multiple producers without individual site visits [1].

This option is used abroad but is not available to U.S. beekeepers, according to the complaint [1].

Additionally, the U.S.-Canada Organic Equivalency Arrangement permits Canadian-certified honey to bear the USDA seal, despite differing standards on pesticide exposure and forage requirements between the two countries [1].

These pathways create a hidden certification route that lets foreign producers label honey as USDA organic without meeting the same standards applied to domestic producers, the lawsuit alleges [1]. The concern over inconsistent certification standards is not new; observers of the organic industry have previously documented cases where the USDA organic label was applied to products that did not meet expected standards [4].

Keep reading

Another Incredible Win Against the Covid Tyrants: New Jersey Jury Delivers Unanimous 8–0 Verdict for Christian Groundskeeper Fired Over a Religious Exemption — Awarded $671,000

A New Jersey jury just delivered a message that the Democrat machine in Essex County did not want to hear.

On Friday, an Essex County jury returned a unanimous 8–0 verdict for Theodore “Teddy” DeBlasio, a longtime groundskeeper at Essex County Hospital Center who was fired after the county denied his religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The panel awarded him more than $670,000 for economic and emotional harm. Attorneys’ fees are still to come. Punitive damages are next.

Attorney John D. Coyle of Coyle Law Group called it New Jersey’s first jury verdict in a COVID-19 religious exemption case.

DeBlasio, raised Catholic and now a Christian, objected to taking a shot tested or developed using aborted fetal cell lines. That is a sincerely held religious belief millions of Americans share. Essex County treated it like a punchline.

According to trial evidence cited by Coyle Law Group, in February 2022 the county denied every religious exemption request submitted by Christian and Catholic employees, and approved every request submitted by Muslim employees.

Coyle put it bluntly on X:

“It was revealed at trial that Essex County denied each and every request from a Christian employee and granted every Muslim exemption. That isn’t an exaggeration.”

“Catholic groundskeeper could not safely test and mask but a Muslim NURSE could test and mask.”

“Essex County determined that Teddy DeBlasio—with the crown of thorns tattooed on his wrist to remind him to think of Jesus with his actions—did not have sincere beliefs but a Muslim employee who photocopied another Muslim’s exemption, did.”

Keep reading

New Jersey Faces Lawsuit Over Knife, Baseball Bat Ban For Self-Defense

A pro-Second Amendment group led a lawsuit Monday seeking to have New Jersey’s laws barring the carrying of items like baseball bats and knives for self-defense thrown out.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and Knife Rights filed the lawsuit on behalf of four individual plaintiffs, arguing that by prohibiting the use of items other than firearms for self-defense, New Jersey was violating the Second Amendment rights of residents. The complaint said that the state has been in “panic mode” since the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller v. District of Columbia.

“New Jersey demands that its citizens be defenseless when they go about their day in public. Defenseless. Until forced to issue Permits to Carry a Handgun by the Bruen decision in 2022, New Jersey banned its citizens from carrying any weapon for self-defense,” the complaint filed Monday says. “Still today, New Jerseyans cannot carry any ordinary object for protection against violent crime, not a baseball bat, not a stick, not a knife, not a pair of scissors, not anything. If a person keeps an ordinary baseball bat in her car or if she keeps a small baton (sometimes called a kuboton) on her keychain she can find herself arrested and thrown in prison under New Jersey law.”

“The Second Amendment protects all common arms not just guns. There are many situations in which a person may prefer to defend against violent attack with something other than a firearm,” the legal filing continued. “New Jersey does not allow that. This is how a single mom using a carpet cutter to defend herself and her young daughter against a violent and potentially fatal beating found herself a convicted felon.”

In a 1990 decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court, the conviction of a single mother for carrying a carpet cutter and using it to protect herself when an ex-boyfriend was beating her was upheld.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on non-firearms being protected, issuing a unanimous ruling in Caetano v. Massachusetts that held that stun guns were protected by the Second Amendment. While the main opinion was unsigned (also known as a “per curiam” opinion), a concurrence from Associate Justice Samuel Alito went into more detail.

“A weapon is an effective means of self-defense only if one is prepared to use it, and it is presumptuous to tell Caetano she should have been ready to shoot the father of her two young children if she wanted to protect herself,” Alito wrote in a separate opinion. “Courts should not be in the business of demanding that citizens use more force for self-defense than they are comfortable wielding.”

“The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself,” Alito added. “To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life.”

Second Amendment Foundation President Massad Ayoob, who has decades of experience as a law enforcement officer, firearms instructor and an expert witness in the use of force for self-defense, explained why many states tend to treat knives and other items more stringently in self-defense cases in an August interview with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Historically, the pistol was seen as the weapon that would be chosen by the lady or the gentleman and the knife and the club were seen as the weapons of the thug and there’s a little bit of that yet today,” Ayoob said.

Keep reading

Lawsuit says Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI and Google made illegal agreement on AI slowdown

A new lawsuit claims Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI and Google made an illegal deal to slow the pace of their respective AI development.

The lawsuit, which was filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that the leading AI companies violated antitrust laws when they agreed to coordinate slowdown efforts, and that doing so would reduce the value consumers get for paid AI subscriptions.

The coordination largely took place on Sept. 12, the lawsuit argues, when Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay urging for industrywide cooperation on decelerating advancements in favor of enhanced safety measures. That same day, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, SpaceXAI CEO Elon Musk and Google DeepMind’s co-founder and chair Demis Hassabis each publicly responded to Amodei’s proposals in agreement.

But the lawsuit also alleges that the coordination began to take shape months earlier. It points to a statement from July 2026 that high-ranking employees from several of the leading AI labs signed that acknowledged the “intense competitive pressure not to unilaterally slow” development. That statement called on the government to support a global effort to slow automated AI development.

It is clear that an agreement among the chief rivals in AI that their progress “should be slower than competition would otherwise produce has an anticompetitive effect on consumers,” the plaintiffs argue.

Lawyers representing four named plaintiffs, who pay for subscriptions to ChatGPT, Claude, Grok or Gemini, are bringing the lawsuit on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other paid subscribers to those services.

The plaintiffs don’t object to the companies individually deciding to slow their own progress in favor of safety. They instead argue in the complaint that antitrust laws forbid them from taking the “shortcut” of agreeing to “substitute collective restraint for individual accountability.” A competitive market allows for responsibility and genuine progress, the lawsuit argues.

“AI will quickly spin out of human control and could kill us all if we allow AI safety and protocol … to be controlled by private self-serving agreements between the world’s most powerful ‘for profit’ technology companies,” said Nick Rowley, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

Representatives for Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and SpaceXAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment Saturday.

In his initial essay proposing the slowdown, Amodei acknowledged potential antitrust challenges, writing that it would be helpful for the U.S. government to mediate “or at least enable” these cross-lab discussions. The government wouldn’t need to participate, he wrote, but it would need to “issue a narrow waiver for certain kinds of safety conversations.”

In response, Altman said on social media that OpenAI welcomes the idea of a “federal framework that sets consistent safety requirements,” but said “we do not believe we need to wait for an antitrust exemption or legislation to begin the work of providing this confidence.”

While the recent conversations about pacing development were spurred by increasing concerns about AI evading human control, several leaders in the AI space have long talked about developing a shared set of standards or otherwise coordinating to ensure safety efforts remain paramount.

Keep reading

White Coat Waste Sues NIH to Force Release of ‘Wuhan West’ Virus-Smuggling Records

White Coat Waste has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit demanding that the Department of Health and Human Services turn over records on animal experiments and the virus smuggling scandal at NIH’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana, the NIAID campus the group has nicknamed “Wuhan West.”

The taxpayer and animal welfare watchdog filed the complaint on September 15 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The lawsuit covers seven FOIA requests sent in 2025 and 2026, some of which have sat unanswered for more than 18 months.

The requests seek IACUC protocols for work at Rocky Mountain Labs on Ebola, other filoviruses, Nipah, Hendra, Lassa, Sudan virus, SARS-CoV-2 variants, Heartland virus, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, avian influenza, and tick colonies, including photos and video of animals used in those studies.

Later requests target records on the undeclared importation of biological materials from Africa by NIH personnel, specifically virologist Vincent Munster, including correspondence with Customs and Border Protection, the FBI, CDC, USDA, DOJ, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and the HHS inspector general.

The agencies acknowledged the requests, but sent nothing over, according to White Coat Waste.

White Coat Waste has long worked to expose this lab and scientist.

Keep reading