Tag: lawsuits

LA seeks to join lawsuit against ‘unconstitutional reckless raids’ by ICE

The city of Los Angeles and nearby cities filed a request to intervene in a class action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security that claims detained individuals are targeted based on race and denied due process.

If granted, the request would allow Los Angeles and its partners to become direct participants in the lawsuit, which would allow the city to use its resources to present arguments, provide evidence and advocate for a temporary restraining order.

The petitioners in the case in question, Perdomo v. Noem, claim federal agents are making “suspicionless stops based on racial profiling” and “warrantless arrests without an individualized determination of flight risk.” They also claim detainees are subject to poor conditions, and that the right to counsel was denied by not allowing the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles access to detainees.

CHRLA is a pro-immigration advocacy group that received $35 million in taxpayer funding. CHRLA helped organize events surrounding the recent and ongoing immigration-related Los Angeles protests.

Keep reading

Medical orgs sue RFK Jr. and HHS following move to retract COVID-19 vaccine from recommended immunization schedule

Several medical organizations have filed a lawsuit against Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that recent actions committed by the secretary and the agency constitute a “public health emergency requiring urgent legal intervention and remediation.”

The lawsuit was filed on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The legal challenge comes in response to the new vaccine measures enacted by Secretary Kennedy, including the dismissal of the former vaccine advisory panel and the withdrawal of official recommendations endorsing mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations for children and pregnant women.

“He’s doing everything he possibly can to undermine vaccine confidence,” stated Dr. Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association, one organization joining the lawsuit. “Quite frankly, we’ve had enough.”

Richard Hughes, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, admitted that it was Kennedy’s late-May post on X—where he rejected the CDC’s vaccine recommendation that children and pregnant women receive the COVID-19 shot and boosters—as the “final straw” prompting legal action.

The suing parties are now “asking the court to order the secretary to announce on X that those immunization recommendations are now reinstated to the CDC immunization schedules,” Hughes noted in a briefing on Monday.

During the briefing, American Academy of Pediatrics President Dr. Susan Kressly chimed in to argue that “our immunization system has long been a cornerstone of U.S. public health, but actions by the current administration are jeopardizing its success.”

Dr. Tina Tan, the president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), another plaintiff in the lawsuit, also asserted that “the only acceptable number of dead children from COVID is zero.”

Others participating in the suit include the American College of Physicians, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the Massachusetts Public Health Alliance.

An unnamed pregnant woman, who was presumably introduced to the joint legal matter by a doctor involved in the suit, is named as a plaintiff as well. According to NBC News, she had expressed concern that recent changes to the vaccination schedule could “prevent her” from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, despite the numerous times RFK Jr. has stated that those vaccines are here to stay, even if they will no longer be on the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule.

The schedule includes routine vaccines for Hepatitis B, DTaP, Hib, PCV, IPV, MMR, Varicella, Hepatitis A, HPV, meningococcal, and annual influenza.

Keep reading

Pulitzer Follies: Trump lawsuit exposes uncomfortable truths about journalism’s highest award

President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board is forcing into the public eye uncomfortable revelations about how the news industry’s top prize giver handled the unraveling of Russia collusion allegations, exposing conflicts in testimony and an admission that people other than Trump complained about its 2018 awards to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of the now-discredited scandal.

While the litigation in an Okeechobee County, Florida courthouse makes its way to the Florida Supreme Court, new admissions by the intelligence community have undercut the factual basis underlying some of the stories that won the two newspapers the 2018 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting.

One of those stories was a December 2017 report by The Washington Post that accused Trump of ignoring or trying to downplay U.S. intelligence claims that Putin tried to help him win the 2016 election. “Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White House,” the Post’s award-winning story declared.

While there remains widespread consensus inside U.S. spy agencies that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee emails that embarrassed Hillary Clinton, the narrative the news stories spawned — namely, that Russia’s intent was to help Trump win the election — is disputed.

The claim that Putin was specifically trying to help Trump was included in a December 2016 Obama administration intelligence community assessment (ICA), but in fact there were concerns about that claim and the way that review was done inside the intelligence community, according to new evidence made public this month.

Keep reading

Judge: Yardley Officials Illegally Deleted Criticism on Facebook

A federal judge has determined that leaders of Yardley Borough, Buck’s County, Pennsylvania, unlawfully silenced a resident when they deleted his comment from the local government’s Facebook page.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The controversy centers on Earl Markey, a corporate trainer and active member of the local Republican committee.

In October 2022, Markey posted a comment on the Yardley Boro Facebook page urging voters to back a referendum that would have trimmed the borough council from seven members to five.

His comment was sharply critical of a sitting councilman.

Markey wrote, “Appointed Councilman Matt Curtin wants to raise property taxes by two mills. Stop unelected, out of touch investment bankers, like Matt Curtin, from volunteering our hard-earned money for higher taxes. Vote YES on the referendum to reduce the size of the Yardley Borough Council.”

Not long after, the comment disappeared.

The borough’s manager, Paula Johnson, labeled the post a personal attack. Council President Caroline Thompson approved its removal.

Markey saw this as a clear act of censorship and took legal action, filing a lawsuit against Thompson, Johnson, and the borough. He also named two other officials who were eventually removed from the case.

“For me that crossed a line,” Markey said. He described the deletion as “censorship by public officials.”

Although borough leaders tried to defuse the matter by letting Markey repost his comment, reimbursing his legal filing fee, and drafting a revised social media policy, Markey pressed forward with the lawsuit.

Keep reading

Taxpayers WHACKED with $66k legal bill for E-Karen’s failure

The eSafety Commissioner’s failed legal battle against Elon Musk’s social media platform X and Canadian activist Chris Elston — better known as Billboard Chris — will cost Australian taxpayers approximately $66,000.

The Administrative Review Tribunal on Tuesday threw out a takedown order issued by Commissioner Julie Inman Grant in response to a controversial post by Elston criticising the World Health Organisation’s inclusion of radical transgender activist Teddy Cook on a policy panel.

In February 2024, Elston shared a post on X stating: “This woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people’. People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.”

Inman Grant deemed the post “degrading” and issued a takedown notice to X on March 22, threatening the company with a $782,500 fine if it failed to remove the post. X blocked the content, but subsequently challenged the decision alongside Elston.

On Tuesday, the Tribunal sided with X and Elston, ruling the takedown order invalid. Deputy president Damien O’Donovan stated that there was no evidence Elston intended for Cook to see the post.

“In the absence of any evidence that Mr Elston intended that Mr Cook would receive and read the post, and in light of the broader explanation as to why Mr Elston made the post, I am satisfied that an ordinary reasonable person would not conclude that it is likely that the post was intended to have an effect of causing serious harm to Mr Cook,” the ruling read.

An eSafety spokesperson confirmed the legal challenge had so far cost “approximately $66,000”, and acknowledged the Tribunal’s guidance.

eSafety said it would continue an agenda to “protect Australians from online abuse” while taking the Tribunal’s findings into account.

Keep reading

82-Year-Old Woman Banned from YMCA for Objecting to Male in Ladies’ Locker Room Wins Her Fight

In July 2022, Port Townsend, Washington, resident Julie Jaman, then 80-years-old, was banned for life from her local YMCA pool. Her crime?  Objecting to the presence of a biological male in the women’s locker room.

Several days after the incident, she shared her story in an interview on KIRO Newsradio’s The Dori Monson Show.

Jaman had been a regular at the pool for 35 years when she encountered a man dressed in a women’s bathing suit in the shower and changing area of the facility.

“I saw a man in a woman’s bathing suit watching maybe four or five little girls pulling down their suits in order to use the toilet,” Jaman recalled. “I asked if he had a penis and he said it was none of my business. I told that man to ‘get out right now.’”

She told a pool staff member what had happened. Jaman said she was “stunned” when the staff member accused her of “being discriminatory,” informed her that she was “permanently banned from the pool,” and said they were contacting the police.

“She didn’t ask me what the problem was, if I was okay, nothing about me. It’s as if she was just waiting to pounce on me. It was just stunning.”

As she was leaving, another staff member approached Jaman. “She told me that I was being discriminatory and not following the YMCA principles and values. I told her I respect all human beings and I’m not following any ideology.”

Jaman told Monson about a conversation she’d had with Olympic Peninsula YMCA CEO Wendy Bart:

I told her there were no signs posted to give women warning. She said there were Pride posters posted all over and she assumed that was adequate to inform women what to expect.

That’s fine with me, except that they do not provide alternatives for women who choose not to be undressing in front of men. Our pool is a very old pool. We just have two shower rooms, dressing rooms, one for men, one for women.

Jaman’s experience came to the attention of the Center for American Liberty, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit group dedicated to protecting the civil liberties of American citizens. CAL filed a lawsuit against the Olympic Peninsula YMCA and the City of Port Townsend in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to defend Jaman’s First Amendment right to free speech.

According to a CAL news release, “the lawsuit asserted that city officials and YMCA staff violated Jaman’s constitutional rights when they banned her for speaking out about safety concerns involving young girls.”

Keep reading

DOJ Joins Lawsuit Against Media-Tech Collusion Over Censorship

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is stepping into a legal battle that challenges the powerful alliance between major media outlets and tech corporations accused of stifling independent journalism.

The case, brought by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and a collection of independent publishers and reporters, targets the “Trusted News Initiative” (TNI), an international consortium that includes the likes of the BBC, Reuters, The Associated Press, and The Washington Post.

Central to the lawsuit is the charge that TNI and its tech partners unlawfully coordinated efforts to silence smaller media competitors by branding their work as “misinformation” or “disinformation” and throttling their reach online.

We obtained a copy of the notice of intent for you here.

The plaintiffs contend that this alleged scheme violates the Sherman Antitrust Act by effectively shutting independent voices out of the marketplace of ideas.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2023, had seen little movement until recently. The DOJ last week filed a formal notice in federal court indicating it will submit a statement of interest by mid-July. The agency cited the case’s focus on “anticompetitive collusion among competitors over product features” as a matter of federal concern.

For those fighting the case, the DOJ’s involvement signals a hopeful shift. Mary Holland, CHD’s CEO, called the announcement “welcome” and pointed to what she described as years of weak federal antitrust enforcement.

Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD’s general counsel, added that the DOJ’s interest could help break the logjam that has slowed the case, stating that she is “awaiting the statement of interest here with great interest.”

The plaintiffs represent a broad swath of independent media and public figures, including Creative Destruction Media, TrialSite News, The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, Health Nut News publisher Erin Elizabeth Finn, Dr. Joseph Mercola, journalist Ben Swann, and Ty and Charlene Bollinger, known for their platforms The Truth About Cancer and The Truth About Vaccines.

Keep reading

’60 Minutes’ Kamala Harris Interviewer Bill Whitaker Reportedly ‘Teary-Eyed’ After News of Lawsuit Settlement

On Tuesday, The Gateway Pundit reported that Paramount and CBS agreed to a settlement which will pay millions of dollars to President Trump as well as alter its editorial policy.

President Trump filed a $20 billion lawsuit against the network’s parent company Paramount for deceptively editing a ’60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris conducted by Bill Whitaker.

The suit alleged that CBS News deceptively edited the Harris interview to help the failed candidate boost her chances.

Paramount Global, CBS’s corporate parent, agreed on Wednesday to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit over a “60 Minutes” interview that Whitaker conducted with Harris just before the 2024 presidential election.

News of the settlement was shared at a staff meeting, and, according to The New York Post, Whitaker grew emotional.”

Per The Post:

The veteran “60 Minutes” correspondent who interviewed Kamala Harris for the segment that triggered the just-settled lawsuit filed by President Trump against CBS News and its parent company reportedly grew emotional during a staff meeting held after the deal was announced.

Bill Whitaker, 73, appeared “teary-eyed” and “quite somber” during a tense Zoom meeting Wednesday morning as he addressed his “60 Minutes” colleagues in the wake of Paramount Global’s $16 million settlement with Trump, according to Oliver Darcy’s Status newsletter.

In the fallout from the lawsuit, CBS News president Wendy McMahon abruptly resigned from the network in May.

“It’s become clear that the company and I do not agree on a path forward,” Wendy McMahon said in an email to staff just weeks after a top “60 Minutes” producer resigned.

Keep reading

Lawsuit Aims To Prevent IRS From Targeting Conservative Groups Ever Again

The mechanism that allowed the IRS to deny right-leaning groups legal nonprofit status during Barack Obama’s administration is still on the books, but this week a conservative group is challenging the provision in court to prevent it from being weaponized again.

Back in 2013, when Obama was president and Lois Lerner led the IRS Tax-Exempt Organizations division, Americans learned that conservative groups seeking nonprofit tax-exempt status were being blackballed by the IRS.

A 2014 House Oversight Committee report shows how huge the scandal was when it was discovered: “A May 2013 review of the IRS tax-exempt applications found that not a single group identifying itself as ‘Tea Party’ was approved by the IRS after February 2010, when the new targeting criteria were instated, while dozens of ‘progressive’ groups were approved.”

But 11 years later, the same criteria on the application for a nonprofit 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status remain, leaving the door open to more corruption.

Lex Politica Attorney Chris Gober has been working since then to change the rule on behalf of Freedom Path, a now nearly inactive conservative issue advocacy organization that filed for tax-exempt status in 2011. After the IRS requested a list of Freedom Path’s donors in 2012, and the 2014 Lois Lerner scandal blew over, finally in 2020 — nine years after its application — the IRS denied Freedom Path nonprofit status on the basis of the same “Facts and Circumstances Test” weaponized against conservative groups in the scandal.  

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice is defending the Facts and Circumstances Test as the case returns to court this week for a status report with Washington, D.C., District Judge Jia M. Cobb. Freedom Path is asking the court to declare the Facts and Circumstances Test “unconstitutionally vague.”

The IRS uses the 11-factor Facts and Circumstances Test (seen below) to evaluate whether a group’s advocacy communications, such as advertising campaigns, should be considered “issue advocacy” — which would allow the group to become a tax-exempt nonprofit — or if its communications should be considered a “political campaign intervention,” preventing the group from gaining tax-exempt status.

The test is subjective; results depend on the values of the person evaluating the applicant’s material.

“It has a necessary chilling effect, because conservative groups nationwide will have to self-censor rather than risk IRS retaliation,” Gober told The Federalist.

Keep reading

CBS, Paramount Forced to Pay Trump Massive 8-Figure Settlement for Deceptively Editing ’60 Minutes’ Kamala Harris Interview

Paramount and CBS was forced to pay millions of dollars to President Trump and agreed to change its editorial policy in a settlement.

President Trump filed a $20 billion lawsuit against the network’s parent company Paramount for deceptively editing a ’60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris.

Trump will be paid $16 million up front, according to Fox News.

Fox News reported:

Paramount Global and CBS agreed on Tuesday to pay President Donald Trump a sum that could reach north of $30 million to settle the president’s election interference lawsuit against the network.

Trump will receive $16 million upfront. This will cover legal fees, costs of the case, and contributions to his library or charitable causes, to be determined at Trump’s discretion. There is an expectation that there will be another allocation in the mid-eight figures set aside for advertisements, public service announcements, or other similar transmissions, in support of conservative causes by the network, Fox News Digital has learned.

Sources close to the situation told Fox News Digital that CBS has agreed to update its editorial standards to install a mandatory new rule. Going forward, the network will promptly release full, unedited transcripts of future presidential candidates’ interviews. People involved in the settlement talks have referred to this as the “Trump Rule.”

In October President Trump sued CBS News for $10 billion (now increased to $20 billion) for deceptively editing its ’60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris.

“President Trump brings this action to redress the immense harm caused to him, to his campaign, and to tens of millions of citizens in Texas and across America by CBS’s deceptive broadcasting conduct,” the lawsuit stated, according to Fox News.

Fake news 60 Minutes was caught editing Kamala’s answers to make her sound coherent and normal.

Keep reading