sues

Oct. 31 (UPI) — The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois sued the Trump administration Friday for allegedly violating the civil rights of those detained in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview, Ill.

The suit, which includes lawyers for the MacArthur Justice Center, the ACLU of Illinois and the Chicago law office of Eimer Stahl, was filed in federal court in Chicago, a press release said.

The suit demands that Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and ICE “stop flouting the law inside Broadview.” The press release said the agencies “must obey the Constitution and provide the people they detain with ready access to counsel and humane conditions of confinement.”

Since the beginning of Operation Midway Blitz on Sept. 8, in which federal agents increased actions against undocumented immigrants in and around Chicago, protests and legal battles have ensued. On Tuesday, a judge issued a temporary restraining order on Gregory Bovino, a U.S. border patrol commander, after video footage showed Bovino throwing tear gas into a crowd during public demonstrations in Chicago and outside of the Broadview detention center. Clergy members, media groups and protesters had filed a suit alleging a “pattern of extreme brutality” intended to “silence the press” and American citizens.

Judge Sara Ellis ordered all agents to wear body cameras. She also ordered Bovino to check in with her daily, but an appeals court overturned that requirement.

“Everyone, no matter their legal status, has the right to access counsel and to not be subject to horrific and inhumane conditions,” said Alexa Van Brunt, director of the MacArthur Justice Center’s Illinois office and lead counsel on the suit, in a statement. “Community members are being kidnapped off the streets, packed in hold cells, denied food, medical care, and basic necessities, and forced to sign away their legal rights. This is a vicious abuse of power and gross violation of basic human rights by ICE and the Department of Homeland Security. It must end now.”

The press release said that agents at Broadview “have treated detainees abhorrently, depriving them of sleep, privacy, menstrual products, and the ability to shower.” Agents have repeatedly denied entry for attorneys, members of Congress, and religious and faith leaders, it said.

DHS has not responded to the suit or its allegations.

“This lawsuit is necessary because the Trump administration has attempted to evade accountability for turning the processing center at Broadview into a de facto detention center,” said Kevin Fee, legal director for the ACLU of Illinois, in a statement. “DHS personnel have denied access to counsel, legislators and journalists so that the harsh and deteriorating conditions at the facility can be shielded from public view. These conditions are unconstitutional and threaten to coerce people into sacrificing their rights without the benefit of legal advice and a full airing of their legal defenses.”

Lawyer Nate Eimer emphasized the importance of access to a lawyer.

“Access to counsel is not a privilege. It is a right,” Eimer, partner at Eimer Stahl and co-counsel in the lawsuit, said in a statement. “We can debate immigration policy but there is no debating the denial of legal rights and holding those detained in conditions that are not only unlawful but inhumane. Justice and compassion demand that our clients’ rights be upheld.”

Oct. 27 (UPI) — Australia’s consumer authority accused Microsoft of “deliberately” hiding subscription information from its Australian customer base.

On Monday, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission sued the software giant for allegedly misleading more than 2.5 million Australian users over subscriptions to Microsoft 365.

“Following a detailed investigation, the ACCC alleges that Microsoft deliberately hid this third option, to retain the old plan at the old price, in order to increase the uptake of Copilot and the increased revenue from the Copilot integrated plans,” stated ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb.

Australia’s CCC launched its Microsoft inquiry after reports that Microsoft allegedly misled its customers about price increases and options over subscriptions following the integration of its “Copilot” AI tool.

It alleged that Microsoft told users a higher price must be paid to keep subscriptions, which was to include Microsoft’s Copilot, or be forced to cancel.

According to Cass-Gottlieb, the ACCC will seek a penalty to demonstrate that non-compliance with Australia’s consumer laws was “not just a cost of doing business.”

Microsoft said it was reviewing the Australian government’s claim, adding that consumer trust and transparency were “top priorities.”

Last year in December, British digital rights advocacy groups launched a billion-dollar lawsuit against Microsoft, alleging it overcharged clients of its Windows Server software used in cloud computing.

The United States, Canada and Australia partnered over the summer in a global probe to identify hackers who attacked a security flaw in Microsoft software to internationally infiltrate agencies and businesses.

In May, U.S.-based Microsoft revealed it was axing roughly 6,000 jobs in its global workforce.

“We remain committed to working constructively with the regulator and ensuring our practices meet all legal and ethical standards,” a Microsoft spokesperson told ABC News in Australia on Monday.

Oct. 26 (UPI) — Petroleum giant Exxon Mobil has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a pair of California laws that would require the company to report greenhouse gas emissions tied to the worldwide use of its products.

The complaint, Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, argues that the California statutes violate the company’s free speech rights by compelling it to “trumpet California’s preferred message even though Exxon Mobil believes the speech is misleading and misguided.”

Calif. SB 253, known as the Climate Corporate Data Act, requires the state’s Air Resources Board to adopt regulations that mandate private companies with more than $1billion in annual revenue to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, indirect emissions, such as the electricity purchased by the company and emissions from the company’s supply chain, including water, water usage, business travel and employee commutes. The indirect emissions account for about two-thirds of a company’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The legislation does not require Exxon to change anything about its production process or limit what consumers can use, only that the company provide data on its emissions.

Michael Gerrard, a climate change researcher at Columbia University, said the oil giant has a long history of resisting making such information public, and said the suit reflects “Exxon’s pattern of aggressively pushing back” on any climate change-related regulation.

Supporters of the law say it discourages “corporate greenwashing,” such as marketing efforts that falsely depict a company’s efforts to reduce climate-warming emissions.

“We need the full picture to make the deep emissions cuts that scientists tell us are necessary to avert the world’s impacts of climate change,” said Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, the bill’s author.

In its lawsuit, Exxon said SB 253 and a companion measure, SB 261, would require the company to “engage in granular conjecture about unknowable future developments and to publicly disseminate that speculation on its website.”

SB 261 requires companies with revenue in excess of $500 million to disclose their climate-related financial risks.

The lawsuit comes amid growing concerns about how AI fuels the spread of misinformation.

Conservative activist Robby Starbuck sued Google, alleging that the tech giant’s artificial intelligence systems generated “outrageously false” information about him.

On Wednesday, Starbuck said in the lawsuit, filed in Delaware state court, that Google’s AI systems falsely called him a “child rapist,” “serial sexual abuser” and “shooter” in response to user queries and delivered defamatory statements to millions of users.

Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said most of the claims were related to mistaken “hallucinations” from Google’s Bard large language model that the company worked to address in 2023.

“Hallucinations are a well-known issue for all LLMs, which we disclose and work hard to minimise,” Castaneda said. “But as everyone knows, if you’re creative enough, you can prompt a chatbot to say something misleading.”

Starbuck is best known for opposing diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

“No one — regardless of political beliefs — should ever experience this,” he said in a statement about the lawsuit. “Now is the time for all of us to demand transparent, unbiased AI that cannot be weaponized to harm people.”

Starbuck made similar allegations against Meta Platforms in a separate lawsuit in April. Starbuck and Meta settled their dispute in August, and Starbuck advised the company on AI issues under the settlement.

According to Wednesday’s complaint, Starbuck learned in December 2023 that Bard had falsely connected him with white nationalist Richard Spencer. The lawsuit said that Bard cited fabricated sources and that Google failed to address the statements after Starbuck contacted the company.

Starbuck’s lawsuit also said that Google’s Gemma chatbot disseminated false sexual assault allegations against him in August based on fictitious sources. Starbuck also alleged the chatbot said that he committed spousal abuse, attended the January 6 Capitol riots and appeared in the Jeffrey Epstein files, among other things.

Starbuck said he has been approached by people who believed some of the false accusations and that they could lead to increased threats on his life, noting the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Starbuck asked the court for at least $15m in damages.

Starbuck lawsuit comes amid growing concerns that AI-generated content has become easy to create and can facilitate the spread of misinformation. As Al Jazeera previously reported, Google’s VEO3 AI video maker allowed users to make deceptive videos of news events.

Alphabet — Google’s parent company’s stock is relatively flat on the news of the lawsuit. As of 2:30pm in New York (18:30 GMT), it is up by 0.06 percent.

The National Labor Relations Board has sued California to block a law that empowers a state agency to oversee some private-sector labor disputes and union elections.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 288 into law last month in response to the Trump administration’s hampering of federal regulators. It gives the state’s Public Employment Relations Board the ability to step in and oversee union elections, charges of workplace retaliation and other issues in the event the federal labor board is unable, or declines, to decide cases.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, argues the law usurps the NLRB’s authority “by attempting to regulate areas explicitly reserved for federal oversight.”

The lawsuit echos the NLRB’s challenge to a recent New York law that similarly seeks to expand the powers of its state labor board.

NLRB attorneys contend in the lawsuits that the laws create parallel regulatory systems that conflict with federal labor law.

The NLRB is tasked with safeguarding the right of private employees to unionize or organize in other ways to improve their working conditions.

Lawmakers in New York and California said they passed their bills to fill a gap, because the NLRB has been functionally paralyzed since January, when President Trump fired one of its Democratic board members. The unprecedented firing of that member, Gwynne Wilcox, left the board without the three-member quorum it needs to rule on cases.

Wilcox has challenged her firing in court, arguing that appointed board members can only be fired for “malfeasance or neglect of duty.” But her removal was upheld by the Supreme Court for now, until her case can make its way through lower courts.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, last month called AB 288 “the most significant labor law reform in nearly a century.”

The California Public Employment Relations Board typically has authority only over public sector employees. But when the new law goes into effect on Jan. 1, workers in the private sector who are unable to get a timely response at the federal level can also petition the state board to take up their cases and enforce their rights.

The state’s labor board can choose to take on a case when the NLRB “has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction,” according to language in the law. That includes when charges filed with the agency or an election certification have languished with a regional director for more than six months — or when the federal board doesn’t have a quorum of members or is otherwise hampered.

The NLRB’s paralysis has put hundreds of cases in limbo, with the agency currently lacking the ability to compel employers to bargain with their workers’ unions, or to stop unfair treatment on the job.

However, the agency’s acting general counsel — Trump appointee William Cowen — has said that only a fraction of cases require decisions from the typically five-member board and that the agency’s work has been largely unaffected, with regional offices continuing to process union elections and unfair labor practice charges.

SACRAMENTO — Gun rights organizations filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging a new California law that bans certain types of Glock-style semiautomatic firearms.

The law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last week, prohibits the sale of semiautomatic pistols with a “cruciform trigger bar” — a feature that allows gun owners to attach a device, commonly called a switch, that boosts the weapon’s firepower and converts it into a machine gun capable of spraying dozens of bullets in a fraction of a second.

“Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights,” John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “They are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.”

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleges the law violates the 2nd Amendment. Plaintiffs include the NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation, as well as some individuals and smaller businesses.

The legal action alleges that California’s new law essentially bans the sale of certain Glock-brand handguns and others with similar features that allow modification by owners.

“A law that bans the sale of — and correspondingly prevents citizens from acquiring — a weapon in common use violates the Second Amendment,” the lawsuit states. “Semiautomatic handguns with cruciform trigger bars are not different from any other type of semiautomatic handgun in a constitutionally relevant way. The Supreme Court has already held that handguns are in common use and cannot be banned.”

The lawsuit states the only justification for banning a firearm is when the weapon is “dangerous and unusual” and argues that semiautomatic pistols are neither.

“They are also unquestionably in common use for lawful purposes,” the lawsuit states. “In fact, they are among the most popular handguns in the nation.”

Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, who introduced Assembly Bill 1127, said his bill was intended to help protect communities from gun violence.

“Automatic weapons are exceptionally lethal and capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute; they are illegal in California,” he told the Senate Public Safety Committee in July. “Unfortunately, some semiautomatic firearms feature a dangerous design element allowing them to be converted to automatic weapons through the attachment of an easy-to-use device known as a switch.”

Over the last few years, handguns retrofitted with switches were used in several prominent shootings in California, including the 2022 mass shooting in downtown Sacramento that left six people dead and a dozen injured.

Machine gun conversion switches are illegal in the United States and are mostly manufactured overseas. They also can be built at home using 3D printers. Instructions for installing one on a firearm can be found online and require little to no technical expertise.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reported a 570% increase in the number of conversion devices collected by police departments between 2017 and 2021, according to the Associated Press.

A fan who spent hundreds of dollars for tickets to what he thought would be one of LeBron James’ final NBA games is looking to recoup the money in small claims court after it turned out “The Second Deicision” teased by the Lakers superstar had nothing to do with his retirement.

Norwalk resident Andrew Garcia filed a claim Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court that states that James owes him $865.66 because of “fraud, deception, misrepresentation, and any and all basis of legal recovery.”

Garcia told The Times that he spent that amount for two tickets to the Lakers’ game against the Cleveland Cavaliers on March 31, 2026, at Crypto.com Arena , thinking it would be the 40-year-old NBA icon’s final game against the team that drafted him in 2003.

He and other basketball fans were under that impression after James posted Monday on X that he would be announcing “the decision of all decisions” the next day. The post included a video clip teasing “The Second Decision,” a clear reference to 2010’s “The Decision,” in which James famously announced he was going to “take my talents to South Beach” to play for the Miami Heat.

Garcia said he purchased the tickets within 10 minutes of James’ social media post.

“I was like, ‘Holy s—, LeBron is going to retire! We’ve got to get tickets now,’” the 29-year-old Garcia said. “Like, literally, because if he formally makes this announcement, you know, there’s gonna be some significant price changes, right?”

Garcia is a huge fan of the Lakers and James, as well as an avid basketball fan in general, so he thought it would be cool to see the NBA’s all-time leading scorer play for the last time against the team with which he started his career and brought its first title in 2016 after his return from Miami.

“Moments like that, I understand the value,” Garcia said. “There still may be some moderate value [to the tickets], however it’s not the same without him retiring. I remember Kobe’s last year, it was kind of what this would have been, per se, where every ticket was worth a lot. Every game had value. …

“I missed out on that. I was a little bit younger at the time. I obviously wasn’t in a position to where I could just buy tickets unfortunately at that age. I believe I was like 18 or 19 at the time. And that’s one of my biggest regrets as a sports fan. I really wish I could have gotten the Kobe’s last year. So I see this as a potential to kind of make up for what I lost with Kobe.”

But “The Second Decision” ended up having nothing to do with retirement. It was merely a Hennessy ad.

So now Garcia wants his money back.

“There is no circumstance absent him saying he’s gonna retire that I would have bought tickets that far in advance,” Garcia said. “I mean, I buy tickets, but I don’t buy tickets five months’ advance. I’m the kind of person that buys tickets five hours in advance. It was solely, solely, solely based on that. So that’s why I was really thinking, ‘You know what, this might be grounds for a case.’ ”

The Times reached out to an attorney said to be working with James related to the claim but did not receive an immediate response.

In light of everything that has happened this week, though, Garcia said he’d still be willing to pay the same amount of money to see James play during his eventual retirement tour.

“Of course,” Garcia said. “I would probably spend more, because life is all about memories and experiences.”

The largest US city is among more than 2,000 other municipalities pursuing similar lawsuits.

New York City has filed a lawsuit accusing Facebook, Google, Snapchat, TikTok and other online platforms of fuelling a mental health crisis among children by addicting them to social media.

The 327-page complaint filed on Wednesday in federal court in Manhattan seeks damages from Facebook and Instagram owner Meta Platforms, Google and YouTube owner Alphabet, Snapchat owner Snap and TikTok owner ByteDance. It accused the defendants of gross negligence and causing a public nuisance.

The city joined other governments, school districts and individuals pursuing about 2,050 similar lawsuits in nationwide litigation in the Oakland, California, federal court.

New York City is among the largest plaintiffs with a population of 8.48 million, including about 1.8 million under age 18. Its school and healthcare systems are also plaintiffs.

Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said allegations concerning YouTube are “simply not true”, in part because it is a streaming service and not a social network where people catch up with friends.

The other defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A spokesperson for New York City’s law department said the city withdrew from litigation announced by Mayor Eric Adams in February 2024 and pending in California state courts so it could join the federal litigation.

According to Wednesday’s complaint, the defendants designed their platforms to “exploit the psychology and neurophysiology of youth” and drive compulsive use in pursuit of profit.

The complaint said 77.3 percent of New York City high school students admitted to spending three or more hours a day on “screen time” including TV, computers and smartphones, contributing to lost sleep and chronic school absences.

New York City’s health commissioner declared social media a public health hazard in January 2024, and the city, including its schools, has had to spend more taxpayer dollars to address the resulting youth mental health crisis, the complaint said.

The city also blamed social media for an increase in “subway surfing”, or riding atop or off the sides of moving trains. At least 16 subway surfers have died since 2023, including two girls aged 12 and 13 this month, police data show.

“Defendants should be held to account for the harms their conduct has inflicted,” the city said. “As it stands now, [the] plaintiffs are left to abate the nuisance and foot the bill.”

Oct. 6 (UPI) — Illinois and Chicago filed a lawsuit to block the Trump administration’s federal troop deployment to the state’s most populated metropolis as legal action looms in other states over the same issue.

The Illinois lawsuit filed Monday seeks to block federal deployment of National Guard troops and cited legal principles that limit presidential authority to involve American combat troops on U.S. soil.

“Illinois is taking the Trump Administration to court for their unlawful and unconstitutional deployment of military troops to our state,” Gov. JB Pritzker said on social media as he thanked state Attorney General Kwame Raoul for “helping defend the rule of law.”

In the complaint, the state named as defendants U.S. President Donald Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll.

“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the Illinois attorney general wrote in a court filing.

The state’s lawsuit expressed that the order to federalize troops “represents the exact type of intrusion on State power that is at the heart of the Tenth Amendment” of the U.S. Constitution.

The complaint further pointed to widening issues of “economic harm” as the president’s unwanted federalization of American cities persists, and a noted lag in local tourism and other activity hurting state tax revenue.

On Saturday, Pritzker said the Trump administration issued him “an ultimatum” to “call up your troops, or we will.”

The governor said it was “absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a Governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will,” Pritzker wrote on Bluesky.

Illinois’ legal complaint stated that Trump’s deployment of federalized U.S. National Guard troops, including the rounding up of out-of-state units to deploy into other states, “infringes on Illinois’s sovereignty and right to self-governance.” It added that it will “cause only more unrest, including harming social fabric and community relations and increasing the mistrust of police.”

Pritzker called the president’s action an “invasion” and urged U.S. citizens on Sunday to speak up and utilize smartphones in order to record military acts.

On Sunday, a legal memorandum filed by the U.S. Department of Defense revealed 400 troops from Texas were being sent to Portland, Chicago and other cities “where needed”.

“It started with federal agents … and it will now involve sending in another state’s military troops,” said the two-term Democratic governor and rumored 2028 presidential candidate.

U.S. troops have been deployed by Trump in the nation’s capital and Los Angeles where legal challenges are pending as the administration seeks to further expand military presence in other American cities over inflated allegations of high crime.

“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor, Monday’s lawsuit by Illinois stated.

Sept. 26 (UPI) — The Trump administration is suing six Democratic-led states to force them to hand over their voter registration lists, further raising concerns about alleged efforts by the Trump administration to undermine elections.

The Justice Department announced the lawsuits against California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania on Thursday, about 10 days after it sued Oregon and Maine, seeking the same information. Of the eight states, all but one have a Democratic governor.

“Clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “Every state has a responsibility to ensure that voter registration records are accurate, accessible and secure — states that don’t fulfill that obligation will see this Department of Justice in court.”

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, citing public information, at least 27 states have been asked for copies of their voter registration lists.

While questioning states about election administration is not uncommon, requesting voter registration databases from a mass of states is unprecedented, the nonpartisan law and policy institute at NYU Law said.

“Another step of the Trump administration’s concerted strategy to undermine elections: The Justice Department is suing eight states to acquire their voter files,” the center said on X.

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson for Michigan said among the information the federal government would receive in the voter lists is private data, including driver’s license and Social Security numbers as well as personally identifiable information.

“I told them they can’t have it,” she said in a statement, calling the Trump administration lawsuit “illegal” and an “unconstitutional power grab.”

“This kind of request is not normal. Why is this happening now? Why does the federal government want access to everyone’s personal information? I have asked them these questions. Other secretaries of state — both Democrats and Republicans — have also asked them these questions. They refuse to give us a straight answer.”

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber chastised the Justice Department for trying to use the courts to “erode” the rights of her citizens by trying to “intimidate” state officials with a lawsuit to hand over their information.

“The lawsuit and intentions behind it are a blatant overreach by the federal government,” she said in a statement.

She said she is mandated by state law to protect the information of Californians, while accusing the Justice Department of failing to explain the legal authority it’s using to justify its demands.

“The sensitive data of California citizens should not be used as a political tool to undermine the public trust and integrity of elections,” she said.

The U.S. Justice Department sued California Secretary of State Shirley Weber on Thursday for failing to hand over the state’s voter rolls, alleging she is unlawfully preventing federal authorities from ensuring state compliance with federal voting regulations and safeguarding federal elections against fraud.

The Justice Department also sued Weber’s counterparts in Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, who have similarly declined its requests for their states’ voter rolls.

“Clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement on the litigation. “Every state has a responsibility to ensure that voter registration records are accurate, accessible, and secure — states that don’t fulfill that obligation will see this Department of Justice in court.”

In its lawsuit against Weber, who is the state’s top elections official, the Justice Department argues that it is charged — including under the National Voter Registration Act — with ensuring that states have proper protocols for registering voters and maintaining accurate and up-to-date rolls, and therefore is due access to state voter rolls in order to ensure they are so maintained.

“The United States has now been forced to bring the instant action to seek legal remedy for Defendants’ refusal to comply with lawful requests pursuant to federal law,” the lawsuit states.

Weber, in a statement, called the lawsuit “a fishing expedition and pretext for partisan policy objectives,” a “blatant overreach” and “an unprecedented intrusion unsupported by law or any previous practice or policy of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

“The U.S. Department of Justice is attempting to utilize the federal court system to erode the rights of the State of California and its citizens by trying to intimidate California officials into giving up the private and personal information of 23 million California voters,” Weber said.

She said California law requires that state officials “protect our voters’ sensitive private information,” and that the Justice Department not only “failed to provide sufficient legal authority to justify their intrusive demands,” but ignored invitations from the state for federal officials to come to Sacramento and view the data in person — a process Weber said was “contemplated by federal statutes” and would “protect California citizens’ private and personal data from misuse.”

The Justice Department has demanded a “current electronic copy of California’s computerized statewide voter registration list”; lists of “all duplicate registration records in Imperial, Los Angeles, Napa, Nevada, San Bernardino, Siskiyou, and Stanislaus counties”; a “list of all duplicate registrants who were removed from the statewide voter registration list” and the dates of their removals.

It has also demanded a list of all registrations that have been canceled because voters in the state died; an explanation for a recent decline in the recorded number of “inactive” voters in the state; and a list of “all registrations, including date of birth, driver’s license number, and last four digits of Social Security Number, that were cancelled due to non-citizenship of the registrant.”

The litigation is the latest move by the Trump administration to push its demands around voting policies onto individual states, which are broadly tasked under the constitution with managing their own elections.

The lawsuit follows an executive order by Trump in March that purported to radically reshape voting rules nationwide, including by requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship and requiring states to disregard mail ballots that are not received by election day.

The order built on years of unsubstantiated claims by Trump — and refuted by experts — that the U.S. voting system currently allows for rampant fraud and abuse, and that those failures compromised the results of elections, including his 2020 loss to Joe Biden.

Various voting rights groups and 19 states, including California, have sued to block the order.

Advocacy groups say the order, and especially it’s requirements for proving citizenship, would disenfranchise legal U.S. citizen voters who lack ready access to identifying documents such as passports and REAL IDs. They have said barring the acceptance of mail ballots received after election day would also create barriers for voters, especially in large state such as California that need time to process large volumes of ballots.

California currently accepts ballots if they are postmarked by election day and received within a certain number of days after.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has called Trump’s executive order an “illegal power grab” that California and other states will “fight like hell” to stop. His office referred questions about the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit against Weber to Weber’s office.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Gen. Harmeet K. Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, defended the need for the lawsuit, saying in a statement that clean voter rolls “protect American citizens from voting fraud and abuse, and restore their confidence that their states’ elections are conducted properly, with integrity, and in compliance with the law.”

Weber, who in April called Trump’s executive order “an illegal attempt to trample on the states and Congress’s constitutional authority over elections,” said Thursday that she would not be bowed by the lawsuit.

“The sensitive data of California citizens should not be used as a political tool to undermine the public trust and integrity of elections,” she said. “I will always stand with Californians to protect states’ rights against federal overreach and our voters’ sensitive personal information. Californians deserve better. America deserves better.”

Apparently, love is blind to a healthy work environment. That’s what’s alleged in a new class-action lawsuit filed this week.

Stephen Richardson, a contestant on Season 7 of the Netflix dating show “Love Is Blind,” is suing the streaming service and the production companies behind the series, alleging they failed to pay overtime and minimum wages and didn’t provide accurate and itemized wage statements and uninterrupted meal periods. The class action was filed Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Richardson alleges in the lawsuit that producers wrongly classified him and the rest of the cast, who he says regularly worked 20-hour shifts, in order to pay them less. The lawsuit lists Kinetic Content, Delirium TV and Netflix as defendants.

Producers exerted “complete domination over [participants’] time, schedule, and their ability to eat, drink, and sleep, and communicate with the outside world during the period of employment” and further restricted participants’ actions after the show wrapped, the complaint says. The conditions were “unsafe and inhumane,” the lawsuit says.

“Love Is Blind” follows a group of single men and women searching for love the old-fashioned way, by communicating blindly through a wall. Couples are kept from each other until they establish an engagement, which pays off with unexpected facial reactions that express emotions including great dissatisfaction, confusion or a sigh of relief.

In recent years, the show has been hit with similar lawsuits from other former cast members. Last year, Season 5 participant Renee Poche and Season 2 veteran Nick Thompson filed a lawsuit against the production companies after she was penalized for breaching her contract by publicly discussing her experience on the show.

“I am now being sued for $4 million despite earning $8,000 for my participation on the show,” Poche told USA Today.

Poche alleged the production companies were retaliating against her for speaking about the working conditions she endured. After feeling “like a prisoner” while working on the show, she says, she was cut from the final version of the series.

Season 2 cast member Jeremy Hartwell sued Kinetic Content and Netflix in 2022 for allegedly violating labor laws and creating an “unsafe and inhumane” work environment. Then a number of unnamed former cast members spoke to Insider in April 2023, alleging producers subjected them to 20-hour production days, rarely allowed them to go outside, failed to provide adequate food and mental-health services and ignored their pleas for help.

Throughout the years, reality TV has tried to protect itself from real-life lawyers with nondisclosure agreements and provisions requiring disputes be taken to arbitration. The new complaint has Richardson as the named defendant along with “all others similarly situated.”

The accuser is looking for unspecified damages. Richardson, Netflix, Kinetic Content and Delirium TV did not immediately respond Wednesday to The Times’ request for comment.

A legal aid group has sued to preemptively block any efforts by the U.S. government to deport a dozen Honduran children, saying it had “credible” information that such plans were quietly in the works.

The Arizona-based Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, known as FIRRP, on Friday added Honduran children to a lawsuit filed last weekend that resulted in a judge temporarily blocking the deportation of dozens of migrant children to their native Guatemala.

In a statement, the organization said it had received reports that the U.S. government will “imminently move forward with a plan to illegally remove Honduran children in government custody as soon as this weekend, in direct violation of their right to seek protection in the United States and despite ongoing litigation that blocked similar attempted extra-legal removals for children from Guatemala.”

FIRRP did not immediately provide the Associated Press with details about what information it had received about the possible deportation of Honduran children. The amendment to the organization’s lawsuit is sealed in federal court. The Homeland Security Department did not immediately respond to email requests for comment Friday and Saturday.

Over Labor Day weekend, the Trump administration attempted to remove Guatemalan children who had come to the U.S. alone and were living in shelters or with foster care families in the U.S.

Advocates who represent migrant children in court filed lawsuits across the country seeking to stop the government from removing the children, and on Sunday a federal judge stepped in to order that the kids stay in the U.S. for at least two weeks.

Children began crossing the border alone in large numbers in 2014, peaking at 152,060 in the 2022 fiscal year. July’s arrest tally translates to an annual clip of 5,712 arrests, reflecting how illegal crossings have dropped to their lowest levels in six decades.

Guatemalans accounted for 32% of residents at government-run holding facilities last year, followed by Hondurans, Mexicans and Salvadorans. A 2008 law requires children to appear before an immigration judge with an opportunity to pursue asylum, unless they are from Canada and Mexico. The vast majority are released from shelters to parents, legal guardians or immediate family while their cases wind through court.

The lawsuit was amended to include 12 children from Honduras who have expressed to the Florence Project that they do not want to return to Honduras, as well as four additional children from Guatemala who have come into government custody in Arizona since the suit was initially filed last week.

Some children have parents who are already in the United States.

The lawsuit demands that the government allow the children their legal right to present their cases to an immigration judge, have access to legal counsel and be placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child.

Willingham writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 5 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against the city of Boston, its Mayor Michelle Wu, the Boston Police Department and police commissioner over its so-called sanctuary city laws.

The Justice Department said in a press release Thursday that the practices in the Boston Trust Act, enacted in 2014, “interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of its immigration laws.”

The law allows Boston police to collaborate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement only “on issues of significant public safety, such as human trafficking, child exploitation, drug and weapons trafficking, and cybercrimes, while refraining from involvement in civil immigration enforcement,” the city said.

“The City of Boston and its mayor have been among the worst sanctuary offenders in America — they explicitly enforce policies designed to undermine law enforcement and protect illegal aliens from justice,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “If Boston won’t protect its citizens from illegal alien crime, this Department of Justice will.”

The Department of Justice said Boston’s law allows the “release of dangerous criminals from police custody who would otherwise be subject to removal, including illegal aliens convicted of aggravated assault, burglary, and drug and human trafficking, onto the streets.”

In a statement, Wu vowed to not back down and said the “unconstitutional attack on our city is not a surprise.”

“Boston is a thriving community, the economic and cultural hub of New England, and the safest major city in the country — but this administration is intent on attacking our community to advance their own authoritarian agenda,” she said. “This is our city, and we will vigorously defend our laws and the constitutional rights of cities, which have been repeatedly upheld in courts across the country. We will not yield.”

The Justice Department has filed similar suits against Los Angeles and New York City.

In July, a federal judge dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Illinois, Cook County and Chicago over sanctuary laws.

On Aug. 13, Bondi sent a letter to Wu warning her that officials who obstruct federal immigration could face criminal charges or civil liability.

Wu responded on Aug. 19, citing the Chicago dismissal.

“Courts have consistently held, as recently as last month, that local public safety laws like the Boston Trust Act are valid exercises of local authority and fully consistent with federal law,” she wrote.

In August, a federal judge extended his preliminary injunction that blocks the Trump administration from withholding funds for 34 sanctuary jurisdictions.

Those cities include Boston, Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles.

Bondi in August published a list of “sanctuary jurisdictions,” which she said “impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design.”

Warner Bros. Discovery has joined a key copyright infringement case that could test the legal bounds of using artificial intelligence to create digital replicas of well-known characters.

The company on Thursday filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court against AI company Midjourney Inc., alleging its image generator produces blatant rip-offs of Warner’s well-known and copyright-protected characters, including Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Scooby-Doo.

With the suit, Warner Bros. Discovery joins a legal fight brought in June by Walt Disney Co. and Comcast’s Universal Pictures. The Disney and Universal lawsuit marked the first salvo by major studios to elevate the legal struggle over AI-enabled intellectual property, calling it content theft.

The addition of Warner Bros. Discovery could boost Disney’s and Universal’s case. The three entertainment industry leaders control much of the most valuable intellectual property in Hollywood.

Disney’s stable includes Star Wars, Woody the Cowboy, Winnie the Pooh, the Simpsons and Disney princesses. Universal boasts such beasts as the Hulk, Shrek and the Minions.

Warner Bros. controls characters from DC Comics , Looney Tunes and Hanna-Barbera .

It sued on behalf of Warner Bros. , DC Comics, Turner Entertainment Co., Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc., and the Cartoon Network. The company, which asked for a jury trial, is seeking unspecified damages and an injunction.

The companies allege the four-year-old San Francisco firm Midjourney, which has millions of paid subscribers, built its business off decades of hard work by Hollywood artists, writers and studios.

Midjourney, on its website, describes itself as “an independent research lab exploring new mediums of thought and expanding the imaginative powers of the human species.” Midjourney offers its subscribers use of an image generator to create high-resolution digital depictions, including famous characters like Batman.

Warner Bros. Discovery, Disney and Universal allege that Midjourney trained its generative AI programs by using their copyrighted works. They contend that Midjourney-enabled creations are almost identical to their original copyrighted cartoons. Warner Bros.’ lawsuit included side-by-side renderings of its characters and Midjourney’s reproductions to illustrate the identical details, such as the color of Scooby-Doo’s collar and fur.

Midjourney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“The heart of what we do is develop stories and characters to entertain our audiences, bringing to life the vision and passion of our creative partners,” Warner Bros. Discovery said in a statement. “Midjourney is blatantly and purposefully infringing copyrighted works, and we filed this suit to protect our content, our partners, and our investments.”

Warner Bros. Discovery pointed to the value of its franchises, including its DC Comics movies. Films featuring the DC Extended Universe, which were released from 2018 through 2023, generated more than $7 billion in global ticket sales. Each film earned an average of $479 million, the lawsuit said.

“Only Warner Bros. Discovery has the right under U.S. Copyright law to build a business around reproducing, preparing derivative works, distributing, publicly displaying, and performing images and videos featuring its copyrighted characters,” the company said in its lawsuit.

Such exclusive rights and protections allow Warner Bros. Discovery and other studios to make massive investments in content, the lawsuit said, adding: “That is the cornerstone of the U.S. Copyright Act.”

Hollywood performers and writers in recent years have voiced grave concerns about the rapid development of generative AI. The technology is expected to revolutionize the film industry and lead to fewer jobs.

Curbs on the use of generative AI became a sticking point in the historic 2023 strikes by actors and writers.

Disney and Universal applauded Warner Bros. for joining their legal battle.

“Disney is committed to protecting our creators and innovators, and we’re pleased to be joined by Warner Bros. Discovery in the fight against Midjourney’s blatant copyright infringement,” Disney said in a statement.

Sept. 4 (UPI) — A Danish wind power company filed suit against the President Donald Trump administration Thursday seeking to reverse a stop-work order on its nearly completed Revolution Wind project off the coast of New England.

Orsted and its joint venture partner Skyborn Renewables filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday, asking it to vacate the order from the U.S. Department of the Interior, saying the administration had no authority to make it.

Orsted was ordered on Aug. 22 to stop construction on Revolution Wind to “address concerns related to the protection of national security interest of the United States.” On Aug. 29, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced it was cutting about $679 million in funding to 12 wind farms, calling the projects “wasteful.”

“The Project has spent billions of dollars in reliance on these valid approvals,” the filing said. “The Stop Work Order is invalid and must be set aside because it was issued without statutory authority, in violation of agency regulations and procedures and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and is arbitrary and capricious.”

The filing noted that the Department of Defense had already OKed the project.

The offshore wind farm is 80% complete and was expected to begin operations next year. It has 65 turbines, would have a production capacity of 704 megawatts and would give off enough power for more than 350,000 homes across Rhode Island and Connecticut.

The filing said that if the company were forced to follow the stop-work order, it would “inflict devastating and irreparable harm” on Revolution Wind. The company has already spent or committed about $5 billion on the project and will incur more than $1 billion in costs if the project closes.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said the wind farm would interfere with the use of U.S. territorial waters. But Orsted called it a pretext, citing Trump’s history of hating wind power.

“The president has apparent hostility towards offshore wind, including based on statements made on the campaign trail,” Orsted’s attorney told the court.

WASHINGTON — The District of Columbia on Thursday sued to stop President Trump’s deployment of National Guard during his law enforcement intervention in Washington.

The city’s attorney general, Brian Schwalb, said the surge of troops essentially amounts to an “involuntary military occupation.” He argued in the federal lawsuit that the deployment, coinciding with an executive order Aug. 11, that now involves more than 1,000 troops is an illegal use of the military for domestic law enforcement.

A federal judge in California recently ruled that Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles after days of protests over immigration raids in June was illegal.

The Republican administration is appealing that decision and Trump has said he is ready to order federal intervention in Chicago and Baltimore, despite staunch opposition in those Democrat-led cities. That court ruling, however, does not directly apply to Washington, where the president has more control over the Guard than in states.

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment to the new lawsuit.

Members of the D.C. National Guard have had their orders extended through December, according to a Guard official. While that does not necessarily mean all those troops will serve that long, it is a strong indication that their role will not wind down soon.

Several GOP-led states have added National Guard troops to the ranks of those patrolling the streets and neighborhoods of the nation’s capital.

Schwalb’s filing contends the deployment also violates the Home Rule Act, signed by President Richard Nixon in 1973, because Trump acted without the mayor’s consent and is wrongly asserting federal control over units from other states.

The city’s attorney general, an elected official, is its top legal officer and is separate from Washington’s federal U.S. attorney, who is appointed by the president.

The lawsuit is the second from Schwalb against the Trump administration since the president asserted control over the city’s police department and sent in the Guard, actions that have been with protests from some residents.

Trump has said the operation is necessary to combat crime in the district, and Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, has pointed to a steep drop in offenses such as carjackings since it began.

Violent crime has been an issue in the capital for years, though data showed it was on the decline at the start of Trump’s intervention.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

Underdog conservative channel Newsmax is challenging Rupert Murdoch’s dominant Fox News in court.

Newsmax sued Fox News parent firm Fox Corp. Wednesday, accusing Murdoch’s television company of anti-competitive behavior designed to squeeze rivals to maintain its “unlawful monopolization of the Right-leaning Pay TV News Market.”

Fox has “engaged in an exclusionary scheme to increase and maintain its dominance in the market … resulting in suppression of competition in that market that harms consumers, competition and Newsmax Broadcasting,” the Boca Raton, Fla., firm said in its federal lawsuit filed in Miami.

Politically conservative news is big business, and Murdoch has mined that lucrative niche since launching Fox News in 1996 with network architect Roger Ailes. Newsmax launched as an alternative nearly two decades later, in 2014. By that time, Fox News was well established as the go-to outlet for Republicans and other political conservatives.

In its 31-page complaint, Newsmax accused Fox of using its market clout to discourage pay-TV distributors from carrying or promoting Newsmax and other rival conservative news outlets. Fox allegedly imposed “financial penalties on distributors if they carry Newsmax” in basic cable packages, and other obstacles, including charging higher fees or requiring carriage of “little-watched channels like Fox Business,” according to the lawsuit.

“But for Fox’s anticompetitive behavior, Newsmax would have achieved greater pay TV distribution, seen its audience and ratings grow sooner, gained earlier ‘critical mass’ for major advertisers and become, overall, a more valuable media property,” Newsmax said in its lawsuit.

Newsmax became a publicly traded company earlier this year. It raised $75 million through its initial public offering, but its stock, which entered the market at about $83 a share, closed Wednesday down nearly 1% to $13.86.

Fox News scoffed at the lawsuit.

“Newsmax cannot sue their way out of their own competitive failures in the marketplace to chase headlines simply because they can’t attract viewers,” the network said in a statement.

Newsmax, in its complaint, argued that Fox throws its weight around when striking deals with digital media platforms, including Hulu + Live TV, DirecTV+, Sling TV and YouTube TV, which now make up about 30% of the pay-TV market. As a result, some pay-TV providers have little incentive to carry or promote Newsmax, the lawsuit alleges.

Fox’s commanding position has allowed the company to extract “supra-competitive carriage fees,” according to Newsmax. Fox charges pay-TV distributors nearly $2.20 per subscriber per month to carry Fox News. That’s double CNN’s fees and about six times MSNBC’s carriage fee, Newsmax said.

“These inflated costs have been or likely will be passed on to consumers,” Newsmax said in a statement.

Fox News consistently beats CNN and MSNBC in the Nielsen ratings. It was the No. 1 traditional TV network overall in July, beating ABC, NBC and CBS, according to Nielsen.

Newsmax also alleged Fox News resorts to intimidation campaigns, including pressuring guests not to appear on Newsmax. “It also hired private investigators targeting Newsmax executives to damage the company’s credibility,” according to a Newsmax statement.

Newsmax, in its lawsuit, contends the market is not the universe of cable news channels, including CNN and MSNBC. Instead, it contends the politically conservative news space is a market unto itself, controlled almost entirely by Fox.

“Right-leaning pay TV news has been a cornerstone of American television, drawing tens of millions of viewers who identify with, or prefer, right-leaning perspectives on politics, current events, and cultural debates,” the Newsmax lawsuit said.

“A large segment of consumers of political news and media seeks news, commentary, and analysis that aligns with or speaks to their political viewpoints,” the lawsuit said. “These right-leaning viewers treat other right-leaning news channels as their next best substitute — and do not consider left-leaning news outlets as adequate substitutes for right-leaning news channels.”

Newsmax is seeking a jury trial and unspecified financial damages. It also wants a judge to declare Fox’s conduct unlawful under the Sherman Act and Florida’s anti-competition laws and prevent Fox from striking exclusionary contracts.

“This lawsuit is about restoring fairness to the market and ensuring that Americans have real choice in the news they watch,” Newsmax Chief Executive Christopher Ruddy said in a statement.

Sept. 3 (UPI) — The Justice Department is suing Illinois over state laws that grant in-state tuition benefits and financial assistance to migrants, accusing the Prairie State of discriminating against Americans.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, is the latest from the Trump administration targeting laws aiding migrants in receiving tuition benefits, and comes as President Donald Trump‘s feud with Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker continues to deepen.

“Under federal law, schools cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

“This Department of Justice has already filed multiple lawsuits to prevent U.S. students from being treated like second-class citizens — Illinois now joins the list of states where we are relentlessly fighting to vindicate federal law.”

According to the lawsuit, Illinois laws discriminate against out-of-state Americans who are not eligible for the tuition benefits being offered to some undocumented students in the state.

The lawsuit targets two Illinois laws: the Illinois Public Act of 2003, which permits certain undocumented students with residency for purposes of receiving in-state tuition benefits; the Illinois DREAM Act of 2011, which provides scholarships, college saving plans and prepaid tuition programs to undocumented students, paid through private donations.

Federal prosecutors allege that they violate a federal law, enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, that states an undocumented person in the United States “shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state … for any postsecondary education benefit” unless a U.S. citizen is also eligible for the benefit.

“This court should put an end to this discrimination against Americans that is a blatant and ongoing violation of federal law,” the prosecutors said in the lawsuit.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has led a renewed crackdown on immigration, seeking to conduct mass deportations and limiting the protections of migrants already in the country.

This is the fifth lawsuit since June challenging state laws offering in-state tuition or tuition benefits to migrants that are unavailable to out-of-state Americans.

The lawsuits follow President Donald Trump signing several immigration-related executive orders including “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens,” which directed the attorney general to identify laws “favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens,” including “State laws that provide in-State higher education tuition to aliens but not to out-of-State American citizens.”

Early last month, the Justice Department sued Oklahoma for providing eligible undocumented migrants with in-state tuition benefits, with similar suits filed against Kentucky and Minnesota.

In June, prosecutors filed a suit in Texas, with the Republican-led state siding with the federal government, and the two reached an agreement to halt the Lone Star State’s law on giving undocumented migrants in-state tuition benefits.

The lawsuit was also announced on the same day that the Republican president vowed to send National Guard troops to Chicago in a crime crackdown, as he had done to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

Pritzker, a Democrat and a staunch Trump critic, responded by saying there is no emergency warranting the deployment of troops in the city.

“These efforts are not about fighting crime or making communities safer,” Pritzker said in a statement.

“This is about Donald Trump testing his power and producing political drama to cover up his own corruption.”

Aug. 28 (UPI) — The Trump administration Thursday night announced a second criminal referral against Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook for mortgage fraud, as she sues President Donald Trump for attempting to illegally dismiss her.

William Pulte, the agency’s director, announced the second referral on X, stating “3 strikes and you’re out.”

“Lisa Cook needs to step aside — with the evidence coming out on her 3rd mortgage and her alleged misrepresentations to the Federal Government ethics department, I believe she is causing irreparable harm to our beloved Federal Reserve,” Pulte said in a second statement. “How is Jay Powell fine with her behavior?”

Pulte had sent the first criminal referral to Attorney General Pam Bondi on Aug. 26, accusing Cook, the first Black woman to sit on the independent board, of falsifying documents and committing mortgage, bank and wire fraud. She is accused of signing two separate mortgage documents for two separate properties that claim each is her primary residence. One property is in Michigan and the other is in Atlanta. The two documents were allegedly signed two weeks apart during the summer of 2021.

The new referral is about a third property in Cambridge, Mass.

Pulte states Cook misrepresented the property by calling it her “second home” on a 15-year mortgage document in December 2021, and then listing it on a U.S. ethics form as an “investment/rental property” weeks later.

Trump moved to fire Cook on Monday, after calling for her to resign, citing the first criminal referral as reason for the dismissal, the legality of which was unclear and has prompted staunch opposition from Democrats.

The second referral was announced hours after Cook sued Trump for attempting to fire her.

“This case challenges President Trump’s unprecedented and illegal attempt to remove Governor Cook from her position, which, if allowed to occur, would be the first of its kind in the Board’s history,” the suit said.

“It would subvert the Federal Reserve Act, which explicitly requires a showing of ’cause’ for a Governor’s removal, which an unsubstantiated allegation about private mortgage applications submitted by Governor Cook prior to her Senate confirmation is not,” the case introduction continued.

“The President’s actions violate Governor Cook’s Fifth Amendment due process rights and her statutory right to notice and a hearing under the [Federal Reserve Act],” it further stated. “Accordingly, Governor Cook seeks immediate declaratory and injunctive relief to confirm her status as a member of the Board of Governors, safeguard her and the Board’s congressionally mandated independence, and allow Governor Cook and the Federal Reserve to continue its critical work.”

The suit names Trump, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and the Fed Board of Governors as defendants, and a hearing for a request for a temporary restraining order has been slated for 10 a.m. EDT on Friday in front of Federal Judge Jia Cobb.

Should she win the case, her lawyers ask for Trump to declare she remains an active Fed governor, and that board members can only be removed for cause, as described in the Federal Reserve Act, the law under which Trump is attempting to fire her.

The suit also seeks “an award of the costs of this action and reasonable attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act or any other applicable law,” as well as an “award of all other appropriate relief.”

Trump campaigned on retaliating against political opponents. Since returning to the White House in January, he has used his executive powers to strip lawyers and law firms that have represented or are connected to his rivals of security clearances.

Two other Democrats and Trump critics — New York Attorney General Letitia James and Sen. Adam Schiff of California — have also been accused of mortgage fraud by the Trump administration.

Trump’s attempt to fire Cook follows months of the president applying political pressure on her boss, Powell, to lower interest rates. Despite the insults and demands from Trump, Powell has resisted, stating economic policy will not be determined by politics.

Democrats have accused Trump of perpetrating an illegal authoritarian power grab by firing Cook. On Thursday night, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, accused Trump of attempting to “turn the Federal Reserve into the ‘Central Bank of Trump.'”

“The Fed makes decisions based on economic data — not political pressure,” she said in a statement. “This move would undermine the world’s confidence in our economy and harm working people.

“And it is illegal.”