Tag: lawsuits

Coalition Of Dem AGs Sue Trump Admin Over Effort To Weed Non-Citizens Off Of SNAP Program

A coalition of 20 attorneys general, led by New York AG Letitia James and California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the lawsuit Monday, arguing that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand that states turn over personal information about SNAP recipients dating back five years, violates privacy laws.

SNAP is a federally-funded, state-administered program that provides billions of dollars in food benefits to tens of millions of low-income individuals and families in the United States.

The new USDA demands, released last week, require states to provide a list of individuals who have applied or are currently receiving SNAP benefits, in addition to other information such as a list of their immigration statuses in the U.S., and information including their marital statuses, their residential and mailing addresses, and education and employment history, among other things.

The USDA has threatened to withhold administrative funding from states that don’t comply.

On April 24, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins issued a guidance to all State agencies directing them “to enhance identity and immigration verification practices when determining eligibility for the program.

Under Rollins’ direction, John Walk, acting deputy under secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, sent letters to state SNAP agencies, explaining that most noncitizens do not qualify for the benefits.

“By law, only United States citizens and certain lawfully present aliens may receive SNAP benefits. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193) established that ‘aliens within the Nation’s borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs.’ SNAP is not and has never been available to illegal aliens,” Walk wrote.

Specifically, the USDA asked states “to cross-check Social Security numbers with a death master file and to use the free Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system provided by the Department of Homeland Security” to verify immigration status.

An estimated 1.5 million noncitizens collected a total of $4.2 billion in Food Stamp benefit payments in fiscal year 2022, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data.

Keep reading

Lawyer Suing Gates & Bourla for Covid VAX Injuries Arrested and Imprisoned in Netherlands

In a stunning expression of the Globalist-Fascist takeover of the Netherlands, the Netherlands police have arrested Arno van Kessel, the lead attorney suing Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, Mark Rutte et al. for COVID-19 vaccine injuries.

The civil process was scheduled to begin on July 9; Mr. van Kessel was arrested in a Gestapo-reminiscent early morning raid by paramilitary police on June 11, where he was reportedly blindfolded, bound, and taken into detention, where he remains almost two months later.

Readers will note my tardiness in reporting this stunning story. The reason is because both the European and the American press have completely ignored both the civil trial against Gates, Bourla, Rutte et al. and van Kessel’s arrest.

I knew nothing about van Kessel’s arrest until last night, when my co-author, Dr. Peter McCullough, forwarded to me a report by INFOWARS journalist, Adan Salazar. Once again, the so-called “conspiracy theorist” Alex Jones has proven to be one of the first guys to report the shocking reality of what is going on.

Salazar’s report prompted me to do a Google Netherlands search with the key words Arno van Kessel gearresteerd — that is, “Arno van Kessel arrested”—and I got one search result for a June 27 report in an independent online journal called Der Andere Krant (The Other Newspaper). The following is an English translation.

Arno van Kessel will be held in custody for an additional ninety days because the Public Prosecution Service continues to designate him as a “suspect in an investigation into a criminal network,” yet without presenting any evidence. This means the Leeuwarden lawyer will definitely not be present at the public hearing on July 9th in the Leeuwarden District Court, where the first substantive hearing in the internationally high-profile case against, among others, the State of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, and Bill Gates is scheduled. His partner, Peter Stassen, is on his own, but says he will “appear fully equipped.”

In early June, this newspaper reported that there was finally some progress in the internationally high-profile lawsuit by Leeuwarden lawyer Arno van Kessel https://deanderekrant.nl/nieuw-hoofdstuk-in-rechtszaak-tegen-bill-gates-en-mark-rutte/and his Eindhoven colleague Peter Stassen. In 2023, the legal duo announced they would file legal proceedings against Bill Gates, Mark Rutte, and the Dutch State, among others. On behalf of their clients, they want to force the judge to issue a clear ruling on the question: was the COVID-19 mRNA injection a vaccine for the benefit of the population’s health, or a bioweapon? Van Kessel said: “It’s one or the other, and there’s no in between.”

The Northern Netherlands District Court, Leeuwarden location, announced in early June 2025 – finally – that the first substantive hearing of the case is scheduled for July 9th. On Wednesday morning, June 11th, there was a completely unexpected turn of events. Arno van Kessel was dragged from his bed early in the morning by a special intervention team with a considerable display of force. The lawyer, his daughter, and his wife were even briefly held at gunpoint.

A day later, the police published a report on the website politie.nl linking Van Kessel to “a criminal network.” According to a press release issued by the Public Prosecution Service, eight people were arrested that morning for “adhering to anti-institutional ideology and possibly intending to use violence.” One of them was quickly released, while the other seven were held in restricted custody for two weeks, meaning the suspects were not allowed any contact with the outside world. Van Kessel – as was announced last week – was being held in a cell in Vught.

In recent weeks, several stories have appeared in the mainstream media about a network of so-called sovereigns. These “anti-institutionalists” may have been planning something related to the NATO summit. Weapons and explosives may have been found, but any hard evidence or substantiation remains lacking to this day. The suggestion that Van Kessel is also part of a dangerous criminal group has been raised. The charges have since been partially withdrawn. The AD newspaper reported last week that the Public Prosecution Service has been unable to substantiate a plan to disrupt the NATO summit. “We have investigated whether there is an imminent threat. This has not been proven.”

On Thursday, June 26, the Public Prosecution Service released more news after a long silence. One suspect has been released, but “six suspects in the investigation into a criminal network, in which a large proportion of the arrested suspects espouse anti-institutional ideology and may have the intention to use violence, will remain in custody for an additional 90 days,” the Public Prosecution Service announced. Van Kessel is one of those suspects who will remain in custody for another 90 days. The Public Prosecution Service states that it needs more time for the investigation and that “given the state of the investigation, it is not possible to respond substantively to questions about the progress, suspicions, and findings,” according to the Public Prosecution Service.

Keep reading

America First Legal Files Complaint Over Civil Rights Violations At John Hopkins School Of Medicine

According to Campus Reform, “America First Legal has filed a civil rights complaint with the Department of Justice against the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine over ‘discriminatory’ and ‘unconstitutional’ practices.”

This civil rights complaint was filed over Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) by Stephen Miller’s America First Legal (AFL).

AFL announced this development in a press conference on July 17th.

According to Megan Redshaw, counsel at AFL, “This is about restoring equal treatment under the law.”

Redshaw alleged, “Johns Hopkins has received billions in taxpayer dollars, but it is actively segregating opportunities based on race and sex. That is not just wrong—it’s unconstitutional.”

The complaint itself accused Hopkins of embracing DEI principles, including discrimination along both racial and gender lines.

AFL points to Diversity Leadership Council and House Staff Diversity and Inclusion Council as well as Diversity Roadmap as programs by which the school engaged in discriminatory practices.

According to AFL, “Johns Hopkins has constructed a façade of legality around a deeply illegal system. They have replaced explicit race-based admissions with upstream sorting, downstream subsidies, and bureaucratic double-speak designed to preserve racial preferences.”

The complaint also alleges that the discriminatory practices in medicine are not only illegal but also pose challenges to healthcare.

America First Legal has also been active in standing against the onslaught of DEI, having filed civil rights complaints against both Colorado State and Cornell University.

American First Legal is on the front line of real modern-day civil rights on behalf of all Americans.

Keep reading

Federal court sides with Oregon Christian mom after she was prevented from adopting children based on religious beliefs

A federal court of appeals has sided with an Oregon woman who sued the state over an adoption rule by the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) that went against her Christian beliefs. The woman was seeking to adopt children and prevented from doing so by LGBTQ laws.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction barring the ODHS from applying Oregon Administrative Rule Section 413- 200-0308(2)(k) to Jessica Bates while the lawsuit plays out in lower courts.

The rule states that those seeking to foster or adopt children in the state must “Respect, accept and support the race, ethnicity, cultural identities, national origin, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disabilities, spiritual beliefs, and socioeconomic status, of a child or young adult in the care or custody of the Department, and provide opportunities to enhance the positive self-concept and understanding of the child or young adult’s heritage.”

The appeals court stated that “The state denied Bates’s adoption application under this policy after Bates, based on her sincerely held religious beliefs, objected to using adopted children’s preferred pronouns or taking them to medical appointments for gender transitions.” Bates sued the state for violating her rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.

Circuit Judge Daniel A. Bress wrote in the court’s opinion that materials from an instructor-led course called the Resource and Adoptive Families Training (RAFT) from the ODHS state, “whether or not a youth in your care openly identifies as LGBTQ+,” parents should consider “displaying ‘hate-free zone’ signs or other symbols indicating an LGBTQ-affirming environment (e.g., pink triangle, rainbow, or ally flag.)'”

“Again without regard to whether a child in their care identifies as LGBTQ, parents should consider ‘providing acces to a variety of books, movies, and materials, including those that positively represent same-gender relationships’ while ‘pointing out LGBTQ+ celebrities, role models who stand up for the LGBTQ+ community, and people who demonstrate bravery in the face of social stigma,” Bress wrote.

He later added, “Of particular importance to this case, the RAFT materials specifically reference religion in several places. Among other things, the materials state that for LGBTQ youth, ‘prejudice and rejection can occur’ in certain settings, listing among them ‘faith-based communities.’”

Bates, a widowed mother of five, applied in May of 2022 to adopt two children under the age of nine and took the RAFT course. Bates viewed the requirements laid out by the course as “incompatible with her religious beliefs.” The opinion later stated, “Bates represents that she will love and support any adopted child, but she will want to share her beliefs with them.”

Bates’ application was denied in November of 2022 because she could not “meet the adoption home standards.” The letter she received explained, “On July 28, 2022, you completed RAFT Training. After the training you emailed your certifier that the training emphasized SOGIE (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression) as it related to the requirements that Applicants comply with OAR 413-200- 0308(2)(K). You wrote that you ‘cannot support this behavior in a child,’ and that you ‘would not encourage them in this behavior.’”

The letter later added, “You indicated that if a child became aware of their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression and that it was inconsistent with your expected sexual orientation or gender identity or expression for that child while in your home, you would love and treat them as your own but would not support their lifestyle or encourage any behavior related to their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. When asked what it would look [like] if the agency requested you to take the child or youth to medical appointments regarding hormone shot appointments as an example, you indicated you would not take them to the appointment and further indicated you think it ‘would be considered child abuse.’”

Keep reading

New York Teachers Fired for Refusing COVID Vaccines Take Case to U.S. Supreme Court

A group of 19 teachers who sued the city of New York after they were denied religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccine mandates are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review lower court rulings, which they allege unconstitutionally favored some religious beliefs over others.

In a petition filed Monday, the teachers allege that New York City granted religious exemptions only to people who belonged to religions whose leaders had not publicly endorsed COVID-19 vaccination.

The city denied requests by teachers who applied for exemptions based on personal religious beliefs that contradicted their religious leaders’ official support of the vaccines, the appeal said.

Michael Kane, a plaintiff in the case and founder of Teachers for Choice, said:

“What New York City did was so egregious. To allow this to stand sets a horrendous precedent for my children and grandchildren. The discrimination was so intense and constitutionally shoddy it must not be permitted.”

According to Kane, most of the teachers are “still out of work or doing odd jobs, making half their previous income.”

Although New York City Mayor Eric Adams rescinded the mandate in February 2023, the city didn’t rehire the teachers.

The case stems from two lawsuits filed in 2021 challenging New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate and its denials of the religious exemption requests: Kane v. de Blasio and Keil v. City of New York. Children’s Health Defense is supporting the combined lawsuit.

Several lower courts, including the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in November 2024, ruled against the teachers.

The New York City Department of Education, its Chancellor, Melissa Aviles-Ramos, and New York City Health Commissioner Ashwin Vasan are among the defendants named in the combined lawsuit.

Keep reading

‘It’s Mind-Boggling’: State Trooper Called In K-9 Units, Helicopters, Officers with Rifles Just Because He Thought a Teenager Played ‘Ding-Dong Ditch’ at His Home, Families’ Lawsuit Says

A Delaware state trooper who was fired and jailed for violently assaulting two teenagers after learning one of them played a game of “ding-dong ditch” at his house is now facing a lawsuit from the boys’ families.

The lawsuit comes one year after Dempsey Walters pleaded guilty to assault and deprivation of civil rights, both felony charges. He also pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of assault in the third degree and two misdemeanor counts of official misconduct in connection with the incident in August 2023.

According to a grand jury indictment, Walters spotted one teenage boy in his neighborhood on Aug. 17, 2023, and launched a verbal altercation after believing the boy was engaging in misconduct. He and local police took the boy home. The teen was not arrested or charged.

After that incident, officials say that Walters searched the teen’s background in a law enforcement database.

Three days after the altercation, a different teenage boy was walking in Walters’ neighborhood with three of his friends and decided to play “ding-dong ditch.” Ring doorbell footage shows the 15-year-old boy running up to the front door of Walters’ home, kicking it, and running away.

Walters’ girlfriend, who was at home at the time, called Walters and told him about the prank.

Walters, who was on duty, immediately headed home and called state troopers and officers from other law enforcement agencies for help.

Believing that the first teen he encountered in his neighborhood on Aug. 17 may have been involved, he looked up the boy’s address and went to his home, according to the indictment.

When the teen came to the front door, Walters “forcibly pulled” him out of the home and “forced him to the ground, causing injuries,” the indictment states. Walters cuffed the teen and detained him in the back of a police vehicle. The teen was later released without charges.

After detaining the first teen, Walters was contacted by a state trooper who located and detained the 15-year-old who kicked Walters’ door. Walters immediately headed to the scene.

Dashcam video shows the moments a trooper caught up with the teen and his friends. He’s seen ordering the boys to the ground, then pushing the 15-year-old to the ground as the boy screams, and swearing at him repeatedly.

When Walters arrived at the scene, he saw the teen “face-down on the ground” and the trooper struggling to cuff his hands behind his back, the indictment states.

Almost immediately after arriving, Walters is seen running over and placing his knee on the back of the teen’s head and neck, causing him to cry out in distress.

After the boy was cuffed and placed in the back of a trooper’s cruiser, Walters “turned off his body-worn camera and walked to the police vehicle,” the indictment states.

While the teen was seated in the vehicle with his hands cuffed behind his back, Walters struck the boy “in the right side of his face, causing an orbital fracture,” which broke his eye socket.

However, the punch had been recorded since Delaware law enforcement body-worn cameras capture 30 seconds of buffer video, without audio, when they are deactivated.

After reviewing the bodycam footage, state police contacted the state attorney general’s office.

Walters was immediately suspended from his job. A month later, he was indicted. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced to one year in jail and four years of probation.

“The Defendant’s rampage against two kids, and his subsequent attempt to conceal his misconduct, was brutal, dishonest, and unacceptable. It was a flagrant and felonious violation of his oath and an insult to his fellow officers,” Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said in a statement.

Keep reading

When Smart Meters Turn Into Spy Tools

California’s robust privacy protections are facing a critical test as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and community advocates press forward with a lawsuit to dismantle what they describe as an illegal and biased surveillance operation run by Sacramento’s public electric utility.

In a legal filing submitted last week, the EFF laid out evidence that the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), which serves more than 650,000 customers, has spent over a decade monitoring detailed home electricity data and funneling it to police without a warrant. The organization calls this an unconstitutional “dragnet surveillance” program that unlawfully invades household privacy on a massive scale.

We obtained a copy of the filing for you here.

“This case is about Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s…dragnet surveillance of SMUD customers’ homes using sensitive and confidential energy usage information,” the brief begins. “The decade-long surveillance violates the California Constitution and a state privacy statute.”

SMUD’s so-called “smart meters,” installed in nearly every home it serves, transmit power usage in 15-minute intervals to the utility multiple times per day. This data, the lawsuit argues, offers a detailed portrait of home life, including sleep patterns, occupancy, and even personal routines. “SMUD analysts can, in effect, use the data to digitally peer into a person’s home,” the brief explains.

EFF alleges that SMUD has routinely handed over customer information to local police departments, including names, addresses, and usage history, without any individualized suspicion or judicial oversight. In many cases, these disclosures were based solely on arbitrary consumption thresholds. “SMUD has turned over…the names, addresses, and electrical consumption information of more than 33,000 customers through a zip code list,” the brief states.

Keep reading

VICTORY FOR VOTER INTEGRITY: Federal Judge Tosses Leftist Lawsuit — Delivers Knockout Win in Wyoming’s on Proof of Citizenship Requirement

In a crushing blow to radical left-wing lawyer Marc Elias and his progressive allies, a federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit that sought to gut Wyoming’s new election integrity law.

United States District Court Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled in favor of Secretary of State Chuck Gray and dismissed outright the lawsuit filed by the Equality State Policy Center, which had enlisted notorious Democrat operative Marc Elias in a blatant attempt to strike down House Bill 156—Wyoming’s common-sense requirement that all voter registrants provide proof of U.S. citizenship and state residency.

In his 17-page ruling, Judge Skavdahl SLAMMED the plaintiffs for lacking any standing whatsoever, exposing the entire case as a baseless political attack dressed up as a legal complaint.

“Plaintiff has not adequately demonstrated its standing to sue on its own behalf or on behalf of others in this action,” Skavdahl wrote. “The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit, and consequently it must be dismissed.”

The court wrote:

To establish Article III standing to sue, the law requires the plaintiff to show three requirements:
(1) it has suffered an “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

Assuming Plaintiffs assertions to be true, they do not establish its standing to bring this lawsuit in its own capacity. Plaintiff has not shown a concrete injury in fact that is fairly traceable to HB 156.

Plaintiffs alleged diversion-of-resources injury is the same type of injury claimed in AllianceforHippocraticMedicine,but the U.S. Supreme Court determined this type of alleged injury was not a concrete injury in fact traceable to the challenged governmental conduct sufficient to satisfy Article III standing.

Keep reading

Blake Lively Wants Names and IP Addresses

Blake Lively has decided that the best way to respond to online gossip and criticism is with subpoenas, lots of them. With a move that suggests her legal team spent a weekend watching “Enemy of the State,” Lively is now targeting 36 content creators, from high-profile commentators to pseudonymous hobbyists, all over rumors she says were part of a smear effort.

Some of the targets have large followings. Others barely register on the algorithm. One runs a YouTube astrology channel with fewer than 300 subscribers at the time of the subpoena. All are now being asked to turn over a wide array of personal and financial data, as if they were co-conspirators in a criminal probe instead of people who post opinions from their bedrooms.

The case, Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, is already a headache in itself, but this new front seems designed less to resolve the actual lawsuit and more to comb through the internet for anything unflattering.

We obtained a copy of the Google subpoena for you here.

We obtained a copy of the TikTok subpoena for you here.

We obtained a copy of the X subpoena for you here.

If you’re out of the loop, Blake Lively is suing Wayfarer Studios, its co-founder Justin Baldoni, and several others, alleging sexual harassment, workplace misconduct, breach of contract, and a coordinated retaliation campaign designed to destroy her reputation.

According to the complaint, Lively raised concerns about repeated inappropriate behavior by Baldoni and Wayfarer executives during production of It Ends With Us. After the film was completed, she claims Baldoni and his team launched a covert “social manipulation” campaign to discredit her using fake grassroots content, crisis PR firms, and anonymous online posts, which she describes as a well-funded digital smear effort.

Keep reading

Thomas Massie’s New Bill Would Let People Sue Pharma for COVID Vaccine Injuries

Several years after the COVID-19 vaccine’s rollout, the only federal program that provides compensation for COVID vaccine injuries continues to process claims at a snail’s pace while rejecting most of those claims that it does decide.

As of June 1, only 39 people have received compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) for a COVID-19 vaccine injury. It has rejected another 4,338 claims. Some 9,423 people are still waiting for the federal government to even review their case.

The long wait times and high rejection rates have prompted some lawmakers to propose repealing the liability protections created by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which prevents people from suing COVID vaccine makers in state courts and leaves them dependent on the CICP as the only possible source of compensation.

That includes Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), who introduced a bill last week to repeal the liability shields in the PREP Act.

“The PREP Act is medical malpractice martial law,” said Massie in a press release. “Americans deserve the right to seek justice when injured by government-mandated products.”

Passed as part of a defense spending bill in 2005, the PREP Act was intended to shore up companies’ willingness to produce novel “countermeasures” in the wake of a public health emergency like a pandemic or bioterror attack by shielding them from civil suits.

The law allows the Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) to issue blanket liability waivers to countermeasures produced in response to a public health emergency. People injured from a covered countermeasure can pursue compensation through the CICP, but they can’t sue in state court.

In February 2020, then-HHS Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act’s liability shield for COVID-19 countermeasures, which covered then-yet-to-be-invented vaccines, masks, tests, and more.

Massie’s PREP Repeal Act would end those liability protections, thus opening up vaccine makers to personal injury lawsuits in state courts.

Advocates for the vaccine injured say any attention to their plight is welcome.

Keep reading