Latest news with #Plaintiffs
Arab News
5 days ago
- Politics
- Arab News
Lawsuit challenges billions of dollars in Trump administration funding cuts
BOSTON: Attorneys general from more than 20 states and Washington, D.C. filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging billions of dollars in funding cuts made by the Trump administration that would fund everything from crime prevention to food security to scientific research. The lawsuit filed in Boston is asking a judge to limit the Trump administration from relying on an obscure clause in the federal regulation to cut grants that don't align with its priorities. Since January, the lawsuit argues that the administration has used that clause to cancel entire programs and thousands of grants that had been previously awarded to states and grantees. 'Defendants' decision to invoke the Clause to terminate grants based on changed agency priorities is unlawful several times over,' the plaintiffs argued. 'The rulemaking history of the Clause makes plain that the (Office of Management and Budget) intended for the Clause to permit terminations in only limited circumstances and provides no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities.' The lawsuit argues the Trump administration has used the clause for the basis of a 'slash-and-burn campaign' to cut federal grants. 'Defendants have terminated thousands of grant awards made to Plaintiffs, pulling the rug out from under the States, and taking away critical federal funding on which States and their residents rely for essential programs,' the lawsuit added. Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha said this lawsuit was just one of several the coalition of mostly Democratic states have filed over funding cuts. For the most part, they have largely succeeded in a string of legal victories to temporarily halt cuts. This one, though, may be the broadest challenge to those funding cuts. 'It's no secret that this President has gone to great lengths to intercept federal funding to the states, but what may be lesser known is how the Trump Administration is attempting to justify their unlawful actions,' Neronha said in a statement. 'Nearly every lawsuit this coalition of Democratic attorneys general has filed against the Administration is related to its unlawful and flagrant attempts to rob Americans of basic programs and services upon which they rely. Most often, this comes in the form of illegal federal funding cuts, which the Administration attempts to justify via a so-called 'agency priorities clause.' Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said the lawsuit aimed to stop funding cuts he described as indiscriminate and illegal. 'There is no 'because I don't like you' or 'because I don't feel like it anymore' defunding clause in federal law that allows the President to bypass Congress on a whim,' Tong said in a statement. 'Since his first minutes in office, Trump has unilaterally defunded our police, our schools, our health care, and more. He can't do that, and that's why over and over again we have blocked him in court and won back our funding.' In Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Campbell said the US Department of Agriculture terminated a $11 million agreement with the state Department of Agricultural Resources connecting hundreds of farmers to hundreds of food distribution sites while the US Environmental Protection Agency terminated a $1 million grant to the state Department of Public Health to reduce asthma triggers in low-income communities. 'We cannot stand idly by while this President continues to launch unprecedented, unlawful attacks on Massachusetts' residents, institutions, and economy,' Campbell said in a statement. The lawsuit argues that the OMB promulgated the use of the clause in question to justify the cuts. The clause in question, according to the lawsuit, refers to five words that say federal agents can terminate grants if the award 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.' 'The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in this Clause— 'no longer effectuates . . . agency priorities'— provide federal agencies with virtually unfettered authority to withhold federal funding any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding,' the lawsuit said.
Associated Press
5 days ago
- Politics
- Associated Press
Lawsuit challenges billions of dollars in Trump administration funding cuts
BOSTON (AP) — Attorneys general from more than 20 states and Washington, D.C. filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging billions of dollars in funding cuts made by the Trump administration that would fund everything from crime prevention to food security to scientific research. The lawsuit filed in Boston is asking a judge to limit the Trump administration from relying on an obscure clause in the federal regulation to cut grants that don't align with its priorities. Since January, the lawsuit argues that the administration has used that clause to cancel entire programs and thousands of grants that had been previously awarded to states and grantees. 'Defendants' decision to invoke the Clause to terminate grants based on changed agency priorities is unlawful several times over,' the plaintiffs argued. 'The rulemaking history of the Clause makes plain that the (Office of Management and Budget) intended for the Clause to permit terminations in only limited circumstances and provides no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities.' The lawsuit argues the Trump administration has used the clause for the basis of a 'slash-and-burn campaign' to cut federal grants. 'Defendants have terminated thousands of grant awards made to Plaintiffs, pulling the rug out from under the States, and taking away critical federal funding on which States and their residents rely for essential programs,' the lawsuit added. Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha said this lawsuit was just one of several the coalition of mostly Democratic states have filed over funding cuts. For the most part, they have largely succeeded in a string of legal victories to temporarily halt cuts. This one, though, may be the broadest challenge to those funding cuts. 'It's no secret that this President has gone to great lengths to intercept federal funding to the states, but what may be lesser known is how the Trump Administration is attempting to justify their unlawful actions,' Neronha said in a statement. 'Nearly every lawsuit this coalition of Democratic attorneys general has filed against the Administration is related to its unlawful and flagrant attempts to rob Americans of basic programs and services upon which they rely. Most often, this comes in the form of illegal federal funding cuts, which the Administration attempts to justify via a so-called 'agency priorities clause.' Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said the lawsuit aimed to stop funding cuts he described as indiscriminate and illegal. 'There is no 'because I don't like you' or 'because I don't feel like it anymore' defunding clause in federal law that allows the President to bypass Congress on a whim,' Tong said in a statement. 'Since his first minutes in office, Trump has unilaterally defunded our police, our schools, our healthcare, and more. He can't do that, and that's why over and over again we have blocked him in court and won back our funding.' The lawsuit argues that the OMB promulgated the use of the clause in question to justify the cuts. The clause in question, according to the lawsuit, refers to five words that say federal agents can terminate grants if the award 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.' 'The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in this Clause—'no longer effectuates . . . agency priorities'—provide federal agencies with virtually unfettered authority to withhold federal funding any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding,' the lawsuit said.
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Ex-‘Doctor Odyssey' Crew Members Sue Disney, Fox Claiming Sexual Harassment And Wrongful Termination
Three former members of the props department on ABC's medical drama Doctor Odyssey filed a lawsuit Friday against the network's parent company Disney and producer 20th Television's parent Fox, alleging they were subject to sexual harassment on the set of the series and eventually retaliated against and terminated when they complained about it. The suit, filed Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court, says the plaintiffs — Caroline Mack, Alicia Haverland and Ava Steinbrenner — were hired in late spring/early summer 2024 to work in the new series' props department. The defendants then hired Tammie Patton as Prop Master and her husband Tyler Patton as Assistant Prop Master who supervised and directed the plaintiffs in their work. More from Deadline 'Doctor Odyssey' Finale Upbeat With No Hint Of A Future On The High Seas ABC Chief Provides 'Doctor Odyssey' Status Update Marvel Skipping Comic-Con's Hall H This Year The suit claims the props department 'was an unlawful den of sexual harassment and retaliation,' and that the plaintiffs were subject to 'an an unchecked campaign of sexual harassment for months' by 'Taylor Patton and his male buddies.' The behavior cited in the lawsuit (read it here) allegedly included 'sexual jokes, innuendos, comments, sexual gestures and images, and unwanted touching including, but not limited to: (i) regularly giving Plaintiffs unwanted, lingering hugs; (ii) touching one of the Plaintiff's thighs; (iii) frequently placing his hands on one of the Plaintiff's lower back; (iv) placing his arms around Plaintiffs' necks and forcing them to 'walk with him;' and (v) openly grabbing a visiting female employee's buttocks on set.' The suit said the plaintiffs eventually went to senior production members to report the misconduct including Tammie Patton, and say they were retaliated against by being forced to do demeaning tasks, and having their jobs threatened. 'Even though Defendants' Human Resources Department and Senior Management assigned to Dr. Odyssey were fully aware of Tyler Patton's inappropriate behavior and the retaliation his wife/Plaintiffs' boss Tammie Patton engaged in, they took no action to prevent it,' says the suit. 'In fact, Defendants' human resources was asleep at the wheel and permitted the frustrated managers/producers on set to handle these conflicts on their own. This led to Plaintiffs suffering additional mistreatment, retaliation, and emotional distress.' In the end, the plaintiffs say that rather than taking action against the alleged harassers, the defendants informed the entire props department in August that it was being terminated. That became effective at the end of September. 'Defendants took the 'easy' way out choosing to eliminate not only the wrongdoers — Prop Master Tammie Patton and Assistant Prop Master Tyler Patton — but all of the remaining employees in the Props Department who had been subject to the wrongdoers' misconduct,' the suit says. As a result, the plaintiffs are claiming wrongful termination in addition to claims of sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment and retaliation. The suit also cites negligent hiring on the part of Disney, Fox and co-defendant Entertainment Partners, saying the defendants knew Tyler Patton had been subject to similar accusations and lawsuit on the set of the mid-2000s Fox medical drama series House. 'Notably, there was some overlap between employees on Dr. Odyssey and employees on the set of House,' the suit says. The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial. Doctor Odyssey, from Ryan Murphy and starring Joshua Jackson and Don Johnson, debuted its first season in September and is on the bubble for a Season 2 pickup. It was not on ABC's fall 2025 schedule when that was announced earlier this month at the broadcast upfronts. Best of Deadline Sean 'Diddy' Combs Sex-Trafficking Trial Updates: Cassie Ventura's Testimony, $10M Hotel Settlement, Drugs, Violence, & The Feds 'Poker Face' Season 2 Guest Stars: From Katie Holmes To Simon Hellberg 2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Tonys, Emmys, Oscars & More
Black America Web
30-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Black America Web
Smokey Robinson Responds To Rape Accusers With $500M Defamation Suit
Source: Bill Tompkins / Getty Earlier this month, Smokey Robinson was hit with a $50 million sexual assault lawsuit, and now he's firing back. Alongside his wife Frances, the Motown mogul is responding to the allegations with a $500 million counter-suit. According to Variety , in the suit, they not only label the initial filing a 'fabricated scheme' in an effort to extort the wealthy couple, but also accuse them of slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and financial elder abuse. 'The Robinsons did not abuse, harm, or take advantage of Plaintiffs; they treated Plaintiffs with the utmost kindness and generosity,' the suit reads. The couple, who have been married for 23 years, further paint a much more positive environment, saying the former employees went on vacation with them, enjoyed holidays with them, were offered money beyond their salaries, and considered them extended family. The lawyers also filed a motion to dismiss the eight-figure lawsuit, arguing they shouldn't have been allowed to withhold their names. When it was filed the four women only identified themselves as Jane Doe 1, 2, 3 and 4 and claim the Rock & Roll Hall of Famer was a nightmare to work with for years, with their lawyer calling him a 'serial and sick rapist.' Accusations include labeling his wife an enabler as he sexually assaulted the four of them while they were housekeepers at his Chatsworth, California, home, creating a 'hostile work environment.' Jane Doe 1 says the inappropriate behavior began in March 2023, for Jane Doe 2, it started in 2016, who also accuses Frances of 'using ethnically pejorative words and language.' A third claimed he raped her 'at least 20 times' throughout her 12 year tenure, while the third echoes similar sentiments and also served as Frances' assistant. With some of the claims dating back decades, the woman says they feared coming forward earlier in fear of losing their jobs and their families potentially facing 'reprisal, public embarrassment, shame, and humiliation.' When the initial suit went public, the Robinsons released a statement through their lawyer Christopher Frost, shooting down the claims, saying 'the evidence will show that this is simply an ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon–$50 million, to be exact.' It further accuses the plaintiffs' attorneys of 'trying to enlist the public as an unwitting participant in the media circus they are trying to create. See social media's response to the claims below. SEE ALSO Smokey Robinson Responds To Rape Accusers With $500M Defamation Suit was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Competing Rulings on Trump Tariffs Cause Chaos
An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump's tariffs can move forward. On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put a hold on a decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade, which issued an injunction Wednesday against Trump's tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, among other trading partners. The legal back-and-forth over the president's tariffs has left both sides scrambling and created uncertainty for policymakers and the business community alike. Yet another ruling on Thursday by District Judge Rudolph Contreras further muddied the waters. Contreras, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, ruled Thursday that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—which the Trump administration cited to justify imposing tariffs—'does not authorize the President to impose the tariffs set forth in the above-listed orders.' This decision stops the administration from collecting tariffs from two Illinois toy importers, Learning Resources and hand2mind, which filed a lawsuit against the administration in April. 'That crushing burden is felt most immediately and acutely by this country's small and mid-size businesses, including Plaintiffs,' the lawsuit said. Contreras gave the administration two weeks to appeal his decision. On what Trump called 'Liberation Day' on April 2, the president imposed 10 percent tariffs on almost every United States trading partner as well as increased levies on countries such as China, on which he imposed a 30 percent tariff. Canada and Mexico were also slapped with 25 percent tariffs. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of International Trade, which included a 2018 Trump appointee, ruled that the IEEPA did not grant the president 'unbounded authority' to impose tariffs—a function that the Constitution relegates to Congress. The panel added that Trump's tariffs 'exceed any authority granted' to the president by the IEEPA, declaring that most of his tariffs were issued illegally. 'The President's assertion of tariff-making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the President under IEEPA,' the judges wrote. 'The Worldwide and Retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law.' However, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put the ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade on hold, saying the injunction would be 'temporarily stayed until further notice while this court considers the motions papers.' The injunction does not apply to Contreras' ruling today. The Trump administration promptly filed a notice of appeal to challenge the court's decision. The Department of Justice has requested to temporarily halt the court order, saying Thursday that it needed 'to avoid immediate irreparable harm to United States foreign policy and national security.' 'It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,' White House Spokesman Kush Desai said, noting that the Trump administration is committed to using 'every lever of executive power to address this crisis.' Conspiracy theorist and stalwart Trump supporter Laura Loomer called the decision a 'JUDICIAL COUP' on X—a phrase also used by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who said, 'The judicial coup is out of control,' on Wednesday. Despite the court ruling, the president could still find a way to impose his global tariffs, according to economists at Goldman Sachs. 'This ruling represents a setback for the administration's tariff plans and increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major U.S. trading partners,' they wrote in a research note, reported CNBC. 'For now, we expect the Trump administration will find other ways to impose tariffs,' they added.
