Gov. Newsom sues Fox News for defamation
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has filed a $787 million lawsuit against Fox News, accusing host Jesse Watters of defamation by falsely claiming that Newsom had lied about a phone call with President Donald Trump during a dispute over the use of the National Guard in Los Angeles. 'Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him," Fox News said in a statement. "We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
33 minutes ago
- CNN
Charlize Theron speaks out on immigration policies that have ‘destroyed the lives of families, not criminals'
Charlize Theron, a naturalized US citizen, spoke out about changing policies in the country she has made her home. At her annual Africa Outreach Project Block Party over the weekend, Theron thanked attendees for 'taking the time to be a part of this, especially when the world feels like it's burning because it is.' 'Here in Los Angeles, in the US and across the globe, we're moving backwards fast. Immigration policy has destroyed the lives of families, not criminals; women's rights are becoming less and less every day; queer and trans lives are increasingly being erased; and gender-based violence is on the rise,' Theron said, according to The Hollywood Reporter. The issue of immigration is very personal to the star, who immigrated from South Africa to the United States and became a US citizen in 2007. Her block party is held to raise funds to help youth in Africa. Theron spoke out against US aid 'cuts [that] have brought HIV and AIDS programs in my home country of South Africa to an absolute standstill.' 'All of this is not just detrimental, it's dangerous; people will lose their lives — many have already, unfortunately, and at a frightening rate,' she said. 'It's absolutely heartbreaking to see this kind of unnecessary suffering.' 'But what we also see, what we cannot miss, is the resistance. There is hope,' Theron added. 'There is power in all of us standing up, organizing, protesting, voting, and caring for each other, and refusing to accept that this is the new normal.' The event is part of the star's nonprofit the Charlize Theron Africa Outreach Project.
CNN
34 minutes ago
- CNN
SCOTUS orders judges to revisit decisions on transgender health plans, birth certificates in wake of blockbuster ruling
The Supreme Court on Monday tossed aside a handful of lower court rulings that sided with transgender Americans, requiring that judges in those cases revisit their decisions in the wake of a blockbuster ruling this month that upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth. The justices upended rulings that blocked state policies excluding coverage for gender-affirming care in state-sponsored health insurance plans. In a loss for the transgender Americans who sued, those decisions will now be reviewed again. The high court also upended an appeals court ruling that went against Oklahoma in a challenge to the state's effort to ban transgender residents from changing the sex designation on their birth certificates. Lower courts must now review the trio of cases again in light of the Supreme Court's major decision on June 18 that upheld Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for trans minors. The 6-3 ruling in US v. Skrmetti steered clear of discussion about other laws involving transgender Americans, but it also did little to protect them in other cases. The court ruled that Tennessee had not discriminated on the basis of sex, which gave the state far more room to regulate medical care. The court also held that the law did not discriminate on the basis of transgender status. This story is breaking and will be updated.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP Gets Supreme Court Review on Political Party Spending Caps
(Bloomberg) -- The US Supreme Court agreed to consider Republican calls to strike down federal caps on the money political parties can spend on advertisements in coordination with congressional candidates. Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sao Paulo Pushes Out Favela Residents, Drug Users to Revive Its City Center Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown Heeding requests from two GOP campaign committees and the Trump administration, the justices said they will review a federal appeals court decision that upheld the 51-year-old spending limits. The case could prompt the justices to overrule a 2001 decision that sustained the restrictions as a means of tackling corruption and ensuring donors don't use parties as a conduit to circumvent separate limits on direct contributions to candidates. More broadly, the new clash could extend a line of decisions in recent years invalidating campaign finance laws as violating constitutional speech rights. In their appeal, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee said the 2001 decision had fostered political polarization by giving more power to outside groups. The ruling 'has stripped the parties of their comparative advantage in the marketplace for campaign contributions: the ability to coordinate with their candidates,' the Republicans argued. 'With that link severed, donors have largely redirected their funds to outside groups such as Super PACs, which are more and more acting as 'shadow parties' today.' The Trump administration said May 19 that it would join the Republican committees in opposing the spending limits. That unusual dynamic prompted the Democratic National Committee and two party campaign committees to ask to take over the defense of the law. The Supreme Court granted the request as part of its order, saying the Democrats could intervene. 'The First Amendment has not changed since 2001,' the Democrats told the justices. 'The anti-circumvention and corruption concerns justifying the statute remain the same.' Depending on the seat, the coordinated-spending limits ranged from $61,800 to almost $3,772,100 at the time of the appeals court decision. The caps, which Congress enacted in 1974, are adjusted for inflation. The case, which the court will hear in the nine-month term that starts in October, is National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, 24-621. America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1 Does a Mamdani Victory and Bezos Blowback Mean Billionaires Beware? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
