Tag: lawsuits

Harmeet Dhillon on DOJ Suing Multiple States and DC Over Access to Voter Rolls: “We Have Found at Least 350,000 Dead People Currently On the Voter Rolls” 

US Assistant AG for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon was on “Sunday Morning Futures” with host Maria Bartiromo to discuss the DOJ suing 29 states and DC over access to voter rolls.

Bartiromo and Dhillon also discussed the Russia Collusion Hoax and why it appears that no one is ever held accountable for it.

“Our audience knows exactly what happened with the Russia Collusion story. No one has been held accountable. Why not?” Bartiromo asked.

“I heard Kash’s remarks. I agree with them. And you know, your folks need to understand that when we start these investigations, it takes time. We have to interview a lot of witnesses. We don’t want to do what the other side did, which is just jump to conclusions. And so we are building strong cases,” Dhillon said.

“Some of the judges out there, particularly judges appointed more recently, have been, you know, doing their own form of lawfare by simply denying the Trump administration’s valid cases in court,” Dhillon continued.

“I can assure you that you know, the whole Department of Justice is very committed to this, and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is continuing the work started under the Attorney General Pam Bondi,” Dhillon explained.

“If the Republicans lose seats in the House, will these investigations get derailed?” Bartiromo asked.

Keep reading

FBI director says he is suing Atlantic on Monday over story claiming alcohol abuse

FBI Director Kash Patel said on Sunday that he is formally suing The Atlantic on Monday over a story claiming alcohol abuse. 

“See you and your entire entourage of false reporting in court… But do keep at it with the fake news, actual malice standard is now what some would call a legal lay up,” he wrote on X on Saturday.

Patel was responding to an MS Now segment on the Atlantic’s reporting. 

Patel’s attorney posted the letter on X that he wrote to the outlet about the article.

Patel confirmed on “Mornings with Maria” on Sunday that he is going to be filing the lawsuit.

“Yes, for defamation and because, you know what? We have to fight back against the fake news,” he said. “I won’t tolerate their attacks on me.”

Keep reading

Pro-Life Father Targeted By Biden’s FBI Wins $1M Settlement

During the Biden administration, pro-lifers were routinely targeted by the Department of Justice.

In 2022, under the leadership of then Attorney General Merrick Garland, father of seven and pro-life warrior Mark Houck was arrested in Pennsylvania as dozens of fully-armed FBI agents raided his home and terrified his family.

The arrest stemmed from an incident outside an abortion clinic in 2021.

A 72-year-old abortion escort allegedly insisted on harassing Houck’s 12 -year old son, who was accompanying him during sidewalk counseling in front of the clinic. After weeks of agitation, Houck ultimately shoved the abortion escort. No injuries were reported.

Although local prosecutors declined to pursue the case and a judge dismissed a civil lawsuit filed by the escort, Federal authorities charged Houck with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

Houck was found not guilty.

Keep reading

DOJ Sues Connecticut, City of New Haven Over Sanctuary Policies

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Connecticut and the City of New Haven on April 13 over policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The DOJ challenged Connecticut’s Trust Act and an executive order issued by New Haven’s mayor, arguing that they conflicted with federal immigration law and the Constitution. Specifically, the DOJ alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which says federal law takes precedence over state and local laws.

“For years, Connecticut communities have paid the price of these misguided sanctuary policies,” Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the DOJ’s Civil Division said in an emailed statement. “This lawsuit seeks to end such open defiance of federal law.”

The department named Connecticut, Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, Connecticut Attorney General Tong, the City of New Haven, and New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker as defendants.

The Trust Act, which was amended in 2025, limits when law enforcement officers can detain individuals based on civil immigration detainers. It directs officers not to hold someone solely on such a detainer unless certain conditions are met, such as the existence of a judicial warrant or a prior conviction for specific serious offenses, including certain crimes including murder, manslaughter, burglary, or sexual assault. The law also applies in cases where an individual has been flagged in federal security databases.

That has hindered cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities in enforcing immigration laws, the DOJ argued.The DOJ also stated that the law prohibits law enforcement officers from using resources to communicate with federal immigration authorities regarding the custody or release of an individual targeted by a civil immigration detainer.

The law also forbids law enforcement officers from arresting or detaining an individual based on an administrative warrant, according to the lawsuit.

Another issue that the DOJ raised was a 2020 executive order issued by New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker. That order limited the disclosure of personal information—including immigration status—without an individual’s consent and restricts local officials from inquiring about a person’s immigration status in most situations. The DOJ claimed those provisions obstruct federal enforcement efforts.Connecticut and New Haven’s sanctuary policies “threaten and harm the United States’ sovereign interest in the supremacy and enforcement of federal law,” especially the Immigration and Nationality Act, according to the Justice Department.

The lawsuit stated that the sanctuary policies are “an active and deliberate effort to obstruct federal immigration enforcement by, among other things, impeding the communication between federal, state, and local law enforcement officials, and the safe apprehension and detention of [those] unlawfully present.”

Keep reading

‘Major legal victory’: Pro-lifer arrested by Biden SWAT team wins huge settlement

A Catholic father who was targeted by Joe Biden’s abortion-pushing ideologues in government has won a huge settlement for his arrest by SWAT team agents.

Of course the American taxpayer is the one who ultimately must pay as the lawsuit by Mark Houck against the Biden administration actions actually named the Department of Justice as defendant.

Houck’s home and family were “assaulted” by armed federal agents who raided him after he intervened during a pro-life protest to protect his young son from an aggressive and violent abortion escort outside a Planned Parenthood facility.

He later was acquitted of all charges.

According to a report at Lifenews, it is a “major legal victory against blatant targeting and discrimination from former President Joe Biden’s administration.”

The result is a “seven-figure settlement,” although the exact specifications of the deal weren’t released.

Houck’s arrest was made under the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances law, threatening him with up to 11 years in prison, even though the incident triggering the federal assault was unrelated.

The report explained his ordeal began when he stepped in to shield his son from harassment by an abortion escort.

Local police said there was no crime, but for Biden’s abortion-pushing bureaucrats, that wasn’t good enough.

Prosecutors then pursued the high-profile federal counts.

The Biden agenda was blocked when in 2023 a federal jury acquitted him of all counts.

He then sued the DOJ for wrongful prosecution, excessive forces and violation of constitutional rights.

Keep reading

Musk’s xAI Sues Colorado Over AI Law, Saying It Forces Developers to Back State’s Views

An artificial intelligence company founded by Elon Musk filed a lawsuit on April 9 over a Colorado law it claims makes AI developers endorse “Colorado’s views on diversity, equity, and inclusion or face significant compliance costs and civil fines.”

xAI, whose flagship product is the chatbot Grok, named Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser as the defendant. The lawsuit states that the law’s provisions “prohibit developers of AI systems from producing speech that the State of Colorado dislikes, while compelling them to conform their speech to a State-enforced orthodoxy on controversial topics of great public concern.” The lawsuit says the Colorado law violates the First Amendment.

Weiser didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.

The lawsuit questions the use of the term “algorithmic discrimination” in the law, calling it vague.

The text of the law defines it this way: “Algorithmic discrimination means any condition in which the use of an artificial intelligence system results in unlawful differential treatment or impact that disfavors an individual or group of individuals on the basis of their actual or perceived age, color, disability, ethnicity, genetic information, limited proficiency in the English language, national origin, race, religion, reproductive health, sex, veteran status, or other classification protected under the laws of this state or federal law.”

The bill, SB24-205, was introduced in April 2024, passed the next month, and will take effect on June 30, 2026.

Keep reading

Kiwi Farms Challenges DMCA Subpoenas as Tools to Unmask Anonymous Speech

A new lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York offers a clean example of something that keeps happening and keeps getting ignored: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act being used to censor speech and unmask anonymous speakers.

The case is Lolcow LLC v. Fong-Jones, filed on March 12, 2026, and it pits the operator of the web forum Kiwi Farms against Liz Fong-Jones, an activist and field Chief Technology Officer at SaaS observability platform Honeycomb, who has been filing DMCA subpoenas in an attempt to identify anonymous forum users.

The content Fong-Jones wants censored is a screenshot of a Fong-Jones Bluesky post and an edited version of a Fong-Jones headshot, both related to what Fong-Jones has previously described publicly as a “consent accident.”

Forum users posted and discussed those images. Fong-Jones responded by claiming copyright ownership and filing DMCA subpoenas to force the site to hand over the identities of the people who posted them.

The copyright claims seem thin. Kiwi Farms operator Joshua Moon argues that the screenshot is a derivative work over which Fong-Jones holds no copyright, and that the edited headshot represents a textbook case of fair use, given that the image has no commercial value and was modified specifically for purposes of criticism and commentary.

That argument carries weight. Courts have long recognized that transformative use of images for commentary or ridicule sits comfortably within fair use protections.

What makes this case useful as a case study is less the copyright question itself and more the mechanism being exploited. The DMCA subpoena process, codified in Section 512(h), allows copyright holders to obtain a judicial subpoena to unmask the identities of allegedly infringing anonymous internet users just by asking a court clerk to issue one and attaching a copy of the infringement notice.

Keep reading

Epstein Victims Sue Victoria’s Secret Owner Les Wexner for Giving Late Pedophile Over $200 Million, and Enabling His Sex Trafficking Ring

Wexner is on the crosshairs of the Epstein victims and their lawyers.

Fashion billionaire Les Wexner is long known to have been, along with Wall Street titan Leon Black, the biggest Jeffrey Epstein ‘clients’, each shelling hundreds of million dollars to the late pedophile and disgraced financier.

And now, Wexner and his Foundation are being sued by several Epstein victims who claim Wexner enabled the sex offender to create ‘an international sex trafficking ring’.

Ohio Capital Journal reported:

“’The lawsuit alleges Wexner gave Epstein $200 million or more from 1987 to 2007 ‘that Epstein used to build his sex trafficking network and commit acts of gender-motivated violence’, according to the complaint, which was recently filed in the New York Supreme Court.”

Keep reading

US State Dept Settles Free Speech Suppression Lawsuit

The US State Department has settled a lawsuit brought by The Daily Wire, The Federalist, and the State of Texas, accepting a consent decree that bars it from using, financing, or promoting technology designed to suppress or “fact-check” the constitutionally protected speech of American citizens and domestic media outlets.

The settlement also prohibits the Department from working with foreign governments or NGOs for those purposes, whether through formal agreements or informal arrangements.

We obtained a copy of the joint motion for you here.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represented The Daily Wire and The Federalist, secured what amounts to a binding admission that the government had been doing exactly what it was accused of. The Department now acknowledges that its plaintiffs’ speech on COVID-19, sexual ethics, the biological nature of sex, and election integrity was constitutionally protected all along. It took three years of litigation to get the government to say that out loud.

Keep reading

Anti-Marijuana Groups File Lawsuit To Block Trump Administration’s Hemp CBD And THC Medicare Coverage Plan

A coalition of anti-marijuana organizations is suing the Trump administration over a novel initiative set to launch this week to widen the availability of CBD and THC for certain patients by covering hemp-derived products under select federal health insurance programs.

Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and nine other drug prevention groups on Monday filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the legality of the cannabis program—which is being facilitated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—and seeking a temporary restraining order to immediately halt the process.

The filing names CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as defendants in the lawsuit. The lawsuit comes as CMS is set to start covering CBD and THC products as a Substance Access Beneficiary Engagement Incentive (BEI) beginning on Wednesday.

Under the BEI, patients enrolled in specific federal health insurance programs could have up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products covered each year. The CBD-focused plan will also allow a certain amount of THC in products, but the agency said earlier this month the rules are subject to change if federal hemp policy changes, as is currently expected under a law set to take effect later this year.

SAM and the other organizations—including the Cannabis Impact Prevention Coalition, Drug Free American Foundation and Save Our Society From Drugs—made several arguments in support of legal intervention to prevent the cannabidiol BEI from moving forward. Much of the complaint focuses on alleged violations of administrative rules to provide the treatment, which they point out has not received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

CMS didn’t publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for the cannabis BEI that would have afforded the public with a comment period to weigh in, and the agency’s initiative runs counter to a separate final rule it issued last year that “declared cannabis products ineligible for supplemental Medicare coverage for chronically ill patients,” the prohibitionist plaintiffs said.

Beyond those alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the groups noted that CMS described a BEI for CBD containing a maximum THC concentration that exceeds what would constitute federally legal hemp under a policy that’s set to be implemented in November.

The filing says the program would additionally violate the Social Security Act (SSA), which “does not allow CMS to sanction the possession and use of illegal and dangerous Schedule I substances by Medicare patients without clear congressional authorization.”

“CMS’s action represents an unprecedented and unlawful assertion of binding decision-making authority that will profoundly affect the health of elderly Americans,” SAM and the other organizations said in their complaint. “CMS took this action without the guardrails imposed by the administrative process, without any reasoned explanation, in conflict with the agency’s own recent APA-compliant determination, and without statutory authority.”

Keep reading