sues

The lawsuit alleges the Trump administration’s move to cut federal funding to public broadcasting is a violation of the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

National Public Radio (NPR) and three of its local stations have filed a lawsuit against United States President Donald Trump, arguing that an executive order aimed at cutting federal funding for the organisation is illegal.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court on Tuesday in Washington, DC by NPR and three local stations in Colorado — Colorado Public Radio, Aspen Public Radio and KUTE Inc – argues that Trump’s executive order to slash public subsidies to PBS and NPR violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Trump issued the executive order earlier this month, instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other federal agencies “to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS” and requiring that they work to root out indirect sources of public financing for the news organisations. Trump issued the order after alleging there is “bias” in the broadcasters’ reporting.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting spends roughly $500m on public TV and radio annually. PBS and NPR get part of their funding from federal grants: 17 percent and two percent, respectively.

“The Order’s objectives could not be clearer: the Order aims to punish NPR for the content of news and other programming the President dislikes and chill the free exercise of First Amendment rights by NPR and individual public radio stations across the country,” the lawsuit alleges.

“The Order is textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, and it interferes with NPR’s and the Local Member Stations’ freedom of expressive association and editorial discretion,” it said.

The White House’s executive order argued that editorial choices – including that NPR allegedly “refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story”, and that it ran a “Valentine’s Day feature around ‘queer animals’” – were some of the reasons it wanted to cut federal funding.

“This is retaliatory, viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment,” NPR CEO Katherine Maher said in a statement.

“NPR has a First Amendment right to be free from government attempts to control private speech as well as from retaliation aimed at punishing and chilling protected speech. By basing its directives on the substance of NPR’s programming, the Executive Order seeks to force NPR to adapt its journalistic standards and editorial choices to the preferences of the government if it is to continue to receive federal funding.”

The absence of PBS from Tuesday’s filing indicates the two systems will challenge this separately; PBS has not yet gone to court, but is likely to do so soon.

The US president’s attempts to dismantle government-run news sources like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty have also sparked court clashes.

The administration has battled with the press on several fronts. The Federal Communications Commission is investigating ABC, CBS and NBC News. And after The Associated Press refrained from calling the Gulf of Mexico “the Gulf of America”, as Trump directed, the administration restricted the news outlet’s access to certain government events.

May 25 (UPI) — A Texas woman has sued the state’s lottery commission for not awarding her $83.5 million three months after she had the winning ticket in a February Lotto Texas drawing, according to court documents.

“Every Texan knows what that should mean when it comes to the lottery – if you win, you should get paid,” the lawsuit said. “It should take a lawsuit to get paid when you win the lottery. But that’s exactly what has happened here.”

The woman, identified as Jane Doe in court documents, said she bought her ticket using an app called “Jackpocket” through Winners Corners, an Austin-based third party lottery retailer, on February 17, and presented it to the commission on March 18.

A week later, the Texas Lottery Commission said it would be banning the purchase of lottery tickets through unregulated ticket courier services, such as Winners Corners.

The court documents in Doe’s lawsuit said the commission did not tell her at any time that her ticket was not valid, documents show. Texas Gov. Greg Abbot said the state may also be investigating Doe’s ticket.

“Texans must be able to trust in our state’s lottery system and know that the lottery is conducted with integrity and lawfully,” Abbot said in a February statement.

The lawsuit says the state should not be allowed to change rules retroactively, and allege the commission is attempting to sidestep paying Doe.

“We all know the Commission is not allowed to change the rules after the drawing,” the lawsuit, first discovered by CNN, said. “But the Commission has apparently tried to do so and relied – at least in part on this ex post facto announcement to continue to refuse to pay Plaintiff her lottery winnings simply because she utilized a lottery ticket courier service to buy the winning ticket,” the lawsuit said.

Texas Lottery Executive Director Ryan Mindell stepped down in April while the commission was facing a series of investigations.

Only three states, New York, New Jersey and Arkansas, regulate lottery courier services.

TRENTON, N.J. — The Trump administration sued four New Jersey cities over their so-called sanctuary city policies aimed at prohibiting police from cooperating with immigration officials, saying the local governments are standing in the way of federal enforcement.

The Justice Department filed the suit Thursday against Newark, Jersey City, Paterson and Hoboken in New Jersey federal court. The lawsuit seeks a judgment against the cities and an injunction to halt them from enacting the so-called sanctuary city policies.

“While states and local governments are free to stand aside as the United States performs this important work, they cannot stand in the way,” the suit says.

It’s the latest case from President Trump’s administration against sanctuary policies. The administration also sued Chicago, Denver, the state of Colorado, and Rochester, N.Y.

There is no official definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities. The terms generally describe limited local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces U.S. immigration laws nationwide but sometimes seeks state and local help.

Messages seeking comment were left Friday with the affected cities.

Paterson Mayor Andre Sayegh said his city would fight the suit, calling it an “egregious attempt to score political points at Paterson’s expense.”

“We will not be intimidated,” he said in a text message.

Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla said in a statement the city prides itself on its inclusivity.

“The City of Hoboken will vigorously work to defend our rights, have our day in court, and defeat the Trump Administration’s lawlessness. To be clear: we will not back down,” he said.

The mayors of all four cities are Democrats.

New Jersey’s attorney general adopted a statewide Immigrant Trust Directive in 2018, which bars local police from cooperation with federal officials conducting immigration enforcement. The policies adopted by the four cities are similar.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that New Jersey’s statewide policy could stand, but it’s unclear how that court’s order might affect the government’s case against the four cities.

Catalini writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed two lawsuits on Tuesday challenging a Trump administration policy that would deny the state billions of dollars in transportation grants unless it follows the administration’s lead on immigration enforcement.

“Let’s be clear about what’s happening here,” Bonta said in a statement. “The President is threatening to yank funds to improve our roads, keep our planes in the air, prepare for emergencies, and protect against terrorist attacks if states do not fall in line with his demands.”

“He’s treating these funds, which have nothing to do with immigration enforcement and everything to do with the safety of our communities, as a bargaining chip,” Bonta added.

The lawsuits, filed with a coalition of states against the Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security, argue that imposing the new set of conditions across a broad range of grant programs exceeds the administration’s legal authority.

Last month, Trump signed an executive order aiming to identify and possibly cut off federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities and states, which limit collaboration between local law enforcement and immigration authorities.

“It’s quite simple,” said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in a briefing announcing the executive order. “Obey the law, respect the law, and don’t obstruct federal immigration officials and law enforcement officials when they are simply trying to remove public safety threats from our nation’s communities.”

Cities and states that find themselves on the Trump administration’s list could also face criminal and civil rights lawsuits, as well as charges for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

During Trump’s first term in 2018, California legislators passed a pioneering sanctuary law, the California Values Act.

California receives more than $15.7 billion in transportation grants annually to maintain roads, highways, railways, airways and bridges, Bonta’s office said. That includes $2 billion for transit systems, including buses, commuter rail, trolleys and ferries.

The state also receives $20.6 billion in yearly homeland security grants to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks and other catastrophes. Those funds include emergency preparedness and cybersecurity grants.

But the coalition of states — California, Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island — argued that because such grant funding has no connection to immigration enforcement, the Trump administration cannot impose criteria that forces states to comply with its vision of enforcement.

“President Trump doesn’t have the authority to unlawfully coerce state and local governments into using their resources for federal immigration enforcement — and his latest attempt to bully them into doing so is blatantly illegal,” Bonta said.

This story will be updated.

MEXICO CITY — Mexico has sued tech giant Google over its labeling of the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, a change made by President Trump via executive order, Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum said Friday.

Sheinbaum did not provide details of the lawsuit during her daily press briefing, but said that Google had been sued.

Mexico’s Foreign Relations ministry had previously sent letters to Google asking it to not label Mexican territorial waters as the Gulf of America.

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The body of water has shared borders between the United States and Mexico. Trump’s order only carries authority within the United States. Mexico, as well as other countries and international bodies, do not have to recognize the name change.

Mexico argues that Gulf of America should only apply to the part of the gulf over the U.S. continental shelf.

In February, Sheinbaum shared a letter from Cris Turner, Google’s vice president of government affairs and public policy, stating that Google would not change the policy it outlined after Trump declared the body of water the Gulf of America.

As it stands, the gulf appears in Google Maps as Gulf of America within the United States, as Gulf of Mexico within Mexico and Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America) elsewhere. Turner in his letter said the company was using Gulf of America to follow “long-standing maps policies impartially and consistently across all regions.”

The Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years. The Associated Press refers to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen. The White House moved in February to block the AP from being among the small group of journalists to cover Trump in the Oval Office or aboard Air Force One, with sporadic ability to cover him at events in the East Room.

The AP sued three Trump administration officials over access to presidential events, citing freedom of speech in asking a federal judge to stop the blocking of its journalists.

A federal judge ordered the White House last month to restore the AP’s full access to cover presidential events, affirming on 1st Amendment grounds that the government cannot punish the news organization for the content of its speech. The judge’s decision granted emergency relief while the lawsuit proceeds.

A football fan is suing the NFL for $100 million over the “severe emotional distress and trauma” that he suffered when former Colorado quarterback Shedeur Sanders unexpectedly dropped to the fifth round of last month’s draft.

In a lawsuit filed May 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Buffaloes fan Eric Jackson alleged the NFL had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act for collusion and possibly violated the Civil Rights Act for race discrimination, as well as consumer protection laws for “misrepresenting the nature of the drafting process and the qualifications of players.”

Jackson filed the case as a John Doe but revealed his identity by indicating he was representing himself. He describes himself in the lawsuit as “a dedicated fan of Colorado football” who “has closely followed Shedeur Sanders throughout the 2023 and 2024 seasons.” He included a request to file the complaint “in forma pauperis,” meaning he is unable to pay the filing fees.

Sanders, the son of Hall of Fame NFL player and Colorado coach Deion Sanders, was considered by some to be a potential first-round pick. Instead, he was bypassed until the Cleveland Browns claimed him at No. 144 overall, after they had already picked another quarterback, Oregon’s Dillon Gabriel, in the third round.

“Reports and leaked statements suggested that Sanders ‘tanked interviews,’ ‘wasn’t prepared,’ and ‘was too cocky,’ which contributed to a narrative that has unjustly harmed his reputation and potential as a player,” the lawsuit reads. “These slanderous statements reflect biases that influenced the NFL’s decision-making process, causing emotional distress and trauma to the Plaintiff as a fan and consumer.”

Jackson is also seeking “a formal acknowledgment from the NFL regarding the emotional distress caused by their actions and statements,” “a retraction of the slanderous statements made about Shedeur Sanders, along with an apology for any harm caused to his reputation,” and “implementation of fairer practices in the drafting process to ensure that talented players are recognized and given opportunities based on merit.”

The NFL did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment. Asked if the league had any reason to be concerned over the lawsuit, USC professor of law Clare Pastore told The Times, “Nope.”

She said the NFL’s lawyers will likely file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to sustain a claim, and that will likely be the end of the matter.

“This is ridiculous in many ways, but the biggest thing that I believe will immediately leap out at a judge is the concept of standing,” said Pastore, a former litigator whose specialties include civil rights law. “A supposed harm someone suffers in combination with some vast number of other people is not something that, that one person has standing to contest. … It’s what the courts call a generalized grievance. And a generalized grievance does not provide standing in federal court.”

She added: “It’s a little hard for me to see how anything about the Sanders situation could make out a race discrimination claim. I believe there may be race discrimination in certain aspects of the NFL. You look around the coaching ranks, the ownership ranks, they’re not very integrated. But in terms of players, it’s difficult to see how a claim could be made out that a player wasn’t drafted on race discrimination grounds.”

As for the $100 million in damages Jackson is seeking, Pastore called it “absurd.”

“That’s another aspect — it’s not quantifiable,” she said. “Like, how much is a fan harmed by a player that they want to see play not playing for their team, not playing for the team they want, not playing at all? It’s just not the stuff of which lawsuits are made.”