YouTube video by Shane Smith Law

The court says the man cited four court decisions that did not exist, including two he claimed were from the Supreme Court of Canada.

California and 28 other states have initiated a multibillion-dollar lawsuit against Meta, alleging the company intentionally designed Facebook and Instagram to hook children and misled the public about product safety. Attorneys general claim Meta’s platforms feature addictive elements that negatively impact youth mental health, with internal documents suggesting the company prioritized retaining young users. Meta’s defense argues the company has implemented measures to protect minors, citing legal restrictions on data collection from under-13s. The case could set a precedent for future lawsuits, potentially forcing significant changes to social media practices. Jurors will weigh evidence presented during the trial, which includes claims that Meta’s design choices contributed to rising teen mental health crises. Legal experts note this case could challenge Section 230 protections and reshape corporate accountability in tech. The lawsuit follows similar cases where juries found platforms partially responsible for harms linked to social media use.

TikTok video by chungnewcrime

A 15-year-old U.S. teenager, identified by his initials R.K.C., has withdrawn his lawsuit against Meta, marking the end of a closely watched case over social media's impact on children's mental health. The case, which was selected as a bellwether to resolve thousands of similar lawsuits, saw the plaintiff claim that compulsive social media use contributed to anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts. Despite the case being set for trial in Los Angeles on July 27, the teen opted to withdraw his claims days before the trial, citing the successful outcomes of previous settlements with YouTube, TikTok, and Snap. Meta's spokesperson stated that the plaintiff's withdrawal occurred without any payment, emphasizing that the claims were baseless. The case highlights ongoing legal battles against tech giants over allegations of addictive products harming youth. Other related lawsuits include a settlement with Samsung over smartphone health impacts and broader discussions on regulatory oversight of social media platforms. The withdrawal underscores the complexities of legal strategies in high-profile tech cases and the influence of prior settlements on ongoing litigation.

TikTok video by News True Crime

As a legal analyst, attorney, and TV commentator, I provide expert insight on high-profile cases and major legal issues. Recognized by Forbes as a modern-day Erin Brockovich, I use my platform to…

Sarah Longwell (not a lawyer) needs George Conway (super-lawyer) to explain the ins and outs of Trump’s legal cases. With every update, argument, ruling, and procedural twist and turn, listen to George explain what it means and why it matters. #Trump #legalcases #GeorgeConway #Bulwark+ #lawyers #podcast

PLAY Network, an onchain gaming infrastructure platform, said it has won a

When NPR sued Donald Trump Tuesday, it had an easy argument to go with. Normally, in First Amendment retaliation cases against the government, you have to pull together a bunch of disparate strands to...

YouTube video by Quick Global News

The latest edition of the Fox News True Crime Newsletter provides updates on several high-profile U.S. criminal cases. Alex Murdaugh is actively pursuing a new defense strategy following allegations of jury tampering in his murder trial, including a lawsuit against a court clerk. Meanwhile, Luigi Mangione, charged with the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, is awaiting a ruling on evidence suppression that could significantly affect his September trial. Tyler Robinson, accused of killing Charlie Kirk, continues to challenge the release of court evidence and seeks additional secret hearings. The newsletter also covers ongoing cold cases, such as the decades-old murder of Roberta Walls in Connecticut and the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie in Arizona. Other cases include Gabriela Gonzalez, accused in a murder-for-hire plot, and the arrest of a clothing tycoon’s son in a high-profile slaying. The newsletter provides a detailed look at the judicial proceedings, legal strategies, and investigations in these cases, highlighting both new developments and unresolved mysteries in the U.S. criminal justice system.

The upcoming movie ‘Match Fixing’, which stars Vineet Kumar Singh, is set to release in theatres on January 17, 2025.

(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court has acted in a series of cases involving challenges to executive orders signed by President Donald Trump and actions by his administration since he returned to office in January. Cases at the court have involved deportations, protected status for certain migrants, Trump’s transgender military ban, his move to restrict automatic birthright citizenship, firings of federal workers and certain agency officials, cuts to teacher training grants, payments to foreign aid organizations and access to Social Security data. Here is a look at these cases. TRANSGENDER MILITARY BAN The court on May 6 permitted Trump’s administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, letting the armed forces discharge the thousands of current transgender troops and reject new recruits while legal challenges play out. The court granted the Justice Department’s request to lift U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle’s nationwide order blocking the military from carrying out Trump’s policy. Settle had found that Trump’s order likely violates the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. The Justice Department had said Settle usurped the authority of the government’s branch of government - headed by Trump - to determine who may serve in the military. In the case before Settle, seven active-duty transgender troops, a transgender man seeking to enlist and a civil rights advocacy group sued over the ban. In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes also issued a nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s ban while that litigation proceeds, though that order was later put on hold. The Supreme Court did not resolve the legal merits of the dispute. The litigation will continue in lower courts and could return to the justices in the future. REVOKING IMMIGRATION ’PAROLE’ The court on May 30 let Trump’s administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States. The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s order halting the administration’s move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while a legal challenge plays out in lower courts. Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," allowing recipients to live and work in the United States. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called "expedited removal." PROTECTED STATUS FOR VENEZUELAN MIGRANTS The court on May 19 allowed the administration to end temporary protected status that was granted to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans in the United States by Biden. It granted a Justice Department request to lift U.S. District Judge Edward Chen’s order that had halted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to terminate deportation protection conferred to Venezuelans under the temporary protected status, or TPS, program while the administration pursues an appeal. The program is a humanitarian designation under U.S. law for countries stricken by war, natural disaster or other catastrophes, giving recipients living in the United States deportation protection and access to work permits. Chen had ruled that Noem violated a federal law that governs the actions of federal agencies. The judge also said the administration’s portrayal of the whole Venezuelan TPS population as criminals was "baseless and smacks of racism." ’THIRD COUNTRY’ DEPORTATIONS The administration asked the court on May 27 to allow it to rapidly deport migrants to countries other than their own without the opportunity to raise claims that they fear being persecuted, tortured or killed there. It requested that the justices lift U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy’s nationwide injunction requiring that migrants be given the chance to seek legal relief from deportation before they are sent to so-called "third countries," while litigation continues in the case. The administration said that the third-country process, challenged by immigrant rights groups, is critical to removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP The justices on May 15 heard arguments in Trump’s attempt to broadly enforce his executive order to restrict birthright citizenship, a move that would affect thousands of babies born each year as he seeks a major shift in how the Constitution has long been understood. The court’s conservative justices seemed willing to limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, as federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts did to block Trump’s directive. Those three judges found that Trump’s order likely violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment citizenship language. None of the justices signaled an endorsement of Trump’s order and some of the liberals said it violates the Constitution and the court’s own precedents. Trump signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. DEPORTATION OF VENEZUELANS The court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump’s deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The justices granted a request by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing the migrants to maintain the halt on the removals for now. The action came after the court ordered on April 19 a temporary stop to the administration’s deportations of dozens of migrants being held at a detention center in Texas. The Supreme Court placed limits on April 7 on how deportations under the Alien Enemies Act may occur even as the legality of that law’s use for this purpose is being contested. The justices required that detainees receive notice "within a reasonable time and in such a manner" to challenge the legality of their removal. The administration has described the Venezuelans as members of the Tren de Aragua criminal gang, which the State Department as designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Family members and lawyers for the migrants have disputed this allegation. WRONGLY DEPORTED SALVADORAN MAN The court on April 10 directed the Trump administration to facilitate the return to the United States of a Salvadoran man who the U.S. government has acknowledged was deported in error to El Salvador. The Justice Department had asked the justices to throw out an April 4 order by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis requiring the administration to "facilitate and effectuate" the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Xinis had issued the order in response to a lawsuit by Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland and has had a work permit since 2019, and his family challenging the legality of his deportation. The court said that the judge’s order "properly requires the government to ’facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." Abrego Garcia was stopped and detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers on March 12 and questioned about alleged affiliation with the criminal gang MS-13, which the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. His lawyers have denied the alleged gang affiliation. He was deported on March 15 on one of three deportation flights to El Salvador that also included Venezuelan migrants. El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, said during a meeting with Trump on April 14 that he had no plans to return Abrego Garcia to the United States. LABOR BOARD OFFICIALS The court on May 22 allowed Trump to keep two Democratic members of federal labor boards away from their posts while their challenge to his firing of them proceeds. The court temporarily blocked orders by two separate Washington-based federal judges that had shielded Cathy Harris from being dismissed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from being removed from the National Labor Relations Board before their terms expire. Their legal challenges are ongoing in lower courts. Both were appointed to their posts by Biden. The legal fight over these firings has emerged as an important test of Trump’s efforts to bring under his sway federal agencies meant by Congress to be independent from the president’s direct control. It could also prompt the justices to rein in or overrule a 1935 Supreme Court precedent ensuring job protections for certain agency officials. The May 22 opinion also addressed fears voiced by critics that allowing the firings of Wilcox and Harris would jeopardize the independence of the Federal Reserve. "We disagree," the court stated, calling the Fed "a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity." TEACHER TRAINING GRANTS The justices on April 4 let Trump’s administration proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants - part of his crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Myong Joun’s March 10 order requiring the Department of Education to reinstate in eight Democratic-led states funding for grants under two teacher training programs while a legal challenge by the states continues. The states sued after the Department of Education announced that it had cut $600 million in teacher training funds that were promoting what it called "divisive ideologies" including diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, or DEI. The grant programs were established to help support institutions that recruit and train educators in a bid to address critical teacher shortages, especially in rural and underserved communities. PAYMENT TO FOREIGN AID GROUPS The court on March 5 declined to let Trump’s administration withhold payment to foreign aid organizations for work they already performed for the government as he moves to pull the plug on American humanitarian projects around the world. The court upheld U.S. District Judge Amir Ali’s order that had called on the administration to promptly release funding to contractors and recipients of grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department for their past work. Aid organizations accused Trump in lawsuits of exceeding his authority under federal law and the U.S. Constitution by effectively dismantling an independent federal agency in USAID and canceling spending authorized by Congress. FIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES The justices on April 8 blocked a judge’s order for Trump’s administration to rehire thousands of fired employees, acting in one dispute over his efforts to slash the federal workforce and dismantle parts of the government. The court put on hold U.S. Judge William Alsup’s March 13 injunction requiring six federal agencies to reinstate thousands of recently hired probationary employees while litigation challenging the legality of the dismissals continues. Alsup’s ruling applied to probationary employees at the U.S. Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior and Treasury. Probationary workers typically have less than a year of service in their current roles, though some are longtime federal employees in serving new roles. MASS FEDERAL LAYOFFS The administration on June 2 asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston blocked large-scale federal layoffs, known as "reductions in force," in a May 22 ruling siding with a group of unions, non-profit groups and local governments that challenged the administration. The case involves the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, among others. Controlling the personnel of federal agencies "lies at the heartland" of the president’s executive branch authority, the Justice Department said in a filing. The administration asked the court on May 2 to allow the entity called the Department of Government Efficiency, which was spearheaded by Trump’s billionaire adviser Elon Musk, unfettered access to Social Security Administration data of millions of Americans. The Justice Department asked the justices to put on hold U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander’s order that halted the agency from giving DOGE access after she found that the data-sharing arrangement likely violated a federal privacy law. DOGE has been instrumental in Trump’s actions to downsize and reshape the federal government. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop DOGE members from accessing some of the Social Security Administration’s most sensitive data systems. The court on May 23 temporarily paused judicial orders requiring DOGE to turn over records and answer questions concerning its operations. The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper’s orders for DOGE to respond to a government watchdog group’s requests for information after finding that DOGE likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. Cooper also said the watchdog group was entitled to question a DOGE official at a deposition. The administration contends DOGE is an advisory entity not subject to FOIA. The watchdog group said its intention was to shed light on what it called DOGE’s secretive structure and operations. The court on February 21 declined to let Trump immediately fire the head of a federal watchdog agency after a judge’s order had temporarily blocked the president from ousting the official. The court postponed action on the Justice Department’s request to lift U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s February 12 order that had temporarily blocked Trump’s removal of Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel while litigation continued in the dispute. Dellinger on March 6 ended his legal challenge to his firing after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit allowed Trump’s action to stand. The independent agency protects government whistleblowers.

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks. Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed. Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website. It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website. Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.

#Crypto influencer 'Bitboy' Armstrong files new lawsuit over alleged #Lamborghini theft. Accuses ex-colleagues and affiliates including Hit Network and Voomio CEOs. #Bitboy #LegalCases According to Benzinga.