Former FBI agents who were fired after kneeling during a 2020 racial justice protest in Washington have filed a lawsuit to regain their positions, claiming their actions were for de-escalation rather than political expression. The agents contend they were terminated in September by Director Kash Patel due to a perceived lack of political affiliation with President Donald Trump, despite an internal review and a Justice Department inspector general reaching a different conclusion. The agents, who knelt to defuse a tense situation during civil unrest prompted by George Floyd’s death, are seeking reinstatement, backpay, and the expungement of records, arguing their actions saved lives and prevented violence. The lawsuit alleges a partisan effort to retaliate against employees perceived as unsympathetic to President Trump.
Read More
A lawsuit has been filed against the Trump administration alleging that federal agents deployed chemical agents near an apartment building in Portland, Oregon, causing harm to residents. The complaint claims that agents used tear gas, pepper balls, and other munitions indiscriminately, causing fumes to seep into the Gray’s Landing apartment building. The suit alleges that some deployments were for the purpose of putting on a show for conservative influencers. Residents have reported experiencing physical and emotional distress, including PTSD triggers and anxiety.
Read More
The New York Times filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon, challenging new rules imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that have effectively banned most mainstream media outlets from the building. The Times argues the rules violate constitutional freedoms by granting Hegseth the sole power to ban reporters, leading to the exclusion of outlets like the Times, the Associated Press, and others. Despite the denial of access, these outlets continue to report on the military, highlighting stories that the Pentagon may not like. The Times believes this viewpoint discrimination case is strengthened by the lack of credentials for its reporters, while the Pentagon defends the policy as necessary to protect the military.
Read More
The New York Times is taking legal action against the Department of Defense over new press access restrictions at the Pentagon. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, challenges a policy implemented in October that reporters view as an attempt to control reporting and violate First and Fifth Amendment rights. The Times seeks to have the policy declared unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement, while other news organizations are expected to support the case. This move comes as the Pentagon has welcomed pro-Trump influencers and content creators to replace veteran journalists who refused to comply with the new rules.
Read More
Costco sues Trump administration for ‘full refund’ of tariffs, a move that’s sparking a lot of conversation, and for good reason. It’s a complex situation with a lot of moving parts, and it has the potential to impact both the company and, potentially, the consumers who shop there. The core of the matter is that Costco is seeking to recoup money it paid in tariffs imposed during the Trump administration.
Digging deeper into the details, it becomes clear that this isn’t just a simple case of a company wanting its money back. The tariffs in question were levied on imported goods, and the lawsuit argues that they were, in essence, an unfair tax.… Continue reading
Costco Wholesale is suing the Trump administration, contesting the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), seeking a full refund of duties paid. The lawsuit argues that the IEEPA doesn’t explicitly authorize the President to set tariffs. This legal challenge follows the Supreme Court’s review of the tariff agenda, where justices expressed skepticism. Costco, like several other major companies, is seeking refunds, having previously absorbed costs on imported goods such as pineapples and bananas to protect customer prices.
Read More
A federal appeals court unanimously upheld a nearly $1 million penalty against Donald Trump and attorney Alina Habba for a “frivolous” lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and others. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case, citing “sanctionable conduct” in filing the suit. The lawsuit, filed in 2022, alleged a conspiracy to falsely portray Trump’s campaign as colluding with Russia, but was dismissed by a lower court judge who stated that “no reasonable lawyer would have filed it.” This ruling represents another setback in Trump’s attempts to pursue legal action against his political adversaries.
Read More
In a recent decision, a federal appeals court upheld a nearly $1 million penalty against Donald Trump and attorney Alina Habba for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and others. The court, comprised of judges from different political backgrounds, found that Trump and Habba engaged in “sanctionable conduct” when they brought the suit three years prior. The lawsuit, alleging a conspiracy to fabricate claims of collusion with Russia, was dismissed by a lower court, which stated that “no reasonable lawyer would have filed” the case in the first place. The ruling is the latest setback for Trump in his attempts to punish political adversaries.
Read More
Internal documents and statements from Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat reveal that these social media giants were aware of the addictive nature of their platforms and the potential harm to teens, yet continued to target them. According to a newly unsealed legal filing, internal communications show executives acknowledging that the platforms’ designs could be harmful to users’ mental health, with one internal message comparing Instagram to a drug and another noting minors lack the executive function to control screen time. The lawsuit, brought by several school districts and individuals, alleges that the companies prioritized profit over user safety by deliberately designing features to maximize youth engagement and advertising revenue. While the companies deny the allegations, the filing raises questions about the effectiveness of safety features and their awareness of the platforms’ negative impact.
Read More
A former security analyst at Campbell’s has filed a lawsuit alleging that a company executive disparaged the company’s soup as “food for poor people” and made racist remarks. The lawsuit claims the plaintiff was fired after reporting the executive’s inappropriate conduct, including the alleged derogatory comments about the soup. Campbell’s has placed the executive on temporary leave while conducting an investigation, asserting that the reported comments do not reflect their values. The company also refuted claims about its ingredients, stating its products are made with real chicken.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood