Court Digest

New York
NYC pension funds and Oregon sue Fox over 2020 election coverage
NEW YORK (AP) — New York City’s pension funds and the state of Oregon sued Fox Corporation on Tuesday, alleging the company harmed investors by allowing Fox News to broadcast falsehoods about the 2020 election that exposed the network to defamation lawsuits.

The lawsuit, filed in Delaware, accuses the company of inviting defamation claims by amplifying conspiracy theories about the election, including a suit Fox News agreed to settle for nearly $800 million with the voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems.

“Fox’s board of directors has blatantly disregarded the need for journalistic standards and failed to put safeguards in place despite having a business model that invites defamation litigation,” said New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who manages the city’s pension funds.

A spokesperson for Fox Corporation declined to comment.

New York City’s pension funds are long-term shareholders of Fox Corporation, with shares valued at $28.1 million as of the end of July. Oregon holds shares in the company worth approximately $5.2 million.

The complaint, which does not specify what damages it seeks, alleges Fox’s board decided to broadcast former President Donald Trump’s election falsehoods in order to satisfy his supporters, while knowing that doing so would expose the company to lawsuits.

“Defendants chose to invite robust defamation claims, with potentially huge financial liability and potentially larger business repercussions, rather than disappoint viewers of Fox News,” the lawsuit said.

In April, Fox News agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787.5 million to avert a trial in the voting machine company’s lawsuit that would have exposed how the network promoted lies about the 2020 presidential election.

Dominion had argued that the news outlet damaged its reputation by airing phony conspiracy theories that its equipment switched votes from Trump to Democrat Joe Biden.

Lachlan Murdoch, chair and CEO of Fox Corp., said when the settlement was announced that it avoided “the acrimony of a divisive trial and a multiyear appeal process, a decision clearly in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.”

Another voting machine company, Smartmatic USA, also sued Fox News over its coverage of election conspiracy theories.

In a statement, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said the Fox breached its fiduciary duties by disregarding legal risks.

“The directors’ choices exposed themselves and the company to liability and exposed their shareholders to significant risks,” she said. “That is the crux of our lawsuit, and we look forward to making our case in court.”

California
Lawsuit accuses Beverly Hills police of racially profiling Black motorists
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (AP) — A lawsuit accuses Beverly Hills police of racially profiling nearly 1,100 Black people during traffic stops.

The suit announced Monday was filed on behalf of most of the Black drivers who were pulled over in the wealthy city between August 2019 and August 2021.

Out of a total of 1,088 Black motorists stopped, only two were convicted of crimes, attorney Benjamin Crump said at a news conference.

About a third of all arrests made during the period involved Blacks, who make up only 1.5% of the city’s population, Crump said.

“It wasn’t to deter crime. It was to send a message to Black people that we don’t want your kind around here,” Crump said. “That is racial profiling 101!”

The city denied the allegations, saying in a statement, “The statistics presented referencing the number of convictions is a mischaracterization of the evidence in this case. In addition, the 1,088 arrests referenced includes people cited and released, not just custodial arrests.”

The suit seeks $500 million in damages.

Law clerk Shepherd York was one of the people who were pulled over, for having expired license plates as he was driving to work, attorneys said.

“I spent three days in jail,” York said at the news conference. “Humiliated, scared, sad.”

His car was searched and impounded, but he was never convicted of a crime, attorneys said.

Alabama
Judge delays extortion trial against suspect in Natalee Holloway disappearance
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — A federal judge agreed to delay Joran van der Sloot’s trial on extortion charges until later this year in order to give his defense more time to prepare.

Van der Sloot, the chief suspect in the 2005 disappearance of Alabama teenager Natalee Holloway, is charged with trying to extort money from the missing teen’s mother in exchange for revealing where to find her daughter’s remains.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Gray Borden on Tuesday granted van der Sloot’s request to postpone the trial, which will now occur sometime after Dec. 4.

Van der Sloot’s attorney Kevin Butler had asked for the continuance from the October trial docket to give more time to “review the discovery, investigate this case, and prepare for trial.” Federal prosecutors did not oppose the request. The trial date will be set by a separate order by a district judge.

“Given the defendant’s need to adequately prepare his defense and to make an informed decision on whether to enter a guilty plea or proceed to trial, the court finds that the ends of justice served by extending the pretrial deadlines and granting a continuance,” Borden wrote.

Although he’s not on trial for harming Holloway, the extortion and wire fraud charges are the only alleged crimes that link the Dutch citizen to Holloway’s unsolved disappearance on the Caribbean island of Aruba. The 18-year-old went missing during a high school graduation trip with classmates and was last seen leaving a bar with van der Sloot, a student at an international school on the island where he grew up.

Van der Sloot was extradited to the United States from Peru, where he’s serving a 28-year sentence after confessing to killing a Peruvian woman in 2010.


Missouri
Court upholds state Senate districts in first test of revised redistricting rules
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri judge has upheld the constitutionality of the state’s Senate districts in a case that provided the first legal test of revised redistricting criteria approved by voters.

Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem rejected claims that the Senate map unlawfully divided certain local governments into multiple Senate districts, but an attorney said Wednesday that his clients are considering an appeal.

“We are concerned that the ruling announces a new and incorrect standard that could affect redistricting for a long time,” said attorney Chuck Hatfield, who represents voters who sued. “So this seems like a good candidate for a Supreme Court appeal.”

Missouri is one of about 20 states with ongoing litigation stemming from redistricting that occurred after the 2020 census. Many of those cases allege the districts put voters of minority races or political parties at a disadvantage.

In Missouri, two separate bipartisan citizen commissions are supposed to redraw state House and Senate districts after each census to account for population changes. But the Senate commission was unable to agree on a plan and the task fell to a judicial panel.

A lawsuit alleged that the judicial panel violated the state constitution by splitting the St. Louis suburb of Hazelwood and Buchanan County in western Missouri into multiple districts. The suit also originally claimed the voting strength of minority residents was wrongly diluted in some St. Louis-area districts, but that claim was dropped before trial.

The case provided the first legal test of Missouri’s redistricting criteria since voters revised them in a 2018 ballot initiative and then — before those standards ever were used — revised them again in a 2020 constitutional amendment referred to the ballot by the Republican-led Legislature.

In a ruling Tuesday, Beetem said that the 2020 constitutional amendment placed a higher priority on creating compact districts than on keeping intact political subdivisions such as cities or counties.

“The evidence clearly shows that to the extent any political subdivision lines were crossed, the Judicial Commission chose districts that were more compact,” Beetem wrote.

Hatfield said he doesn’t believe the constitutional criteria make it OK to split a county into multiple districts when it could be kept whole.

The Senate districts were defended in court by Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s office. Bailey spokesperson Madeline Sieren described the ruling as a “win for the people of Missouri.”

Maryland
Highest court ending ban on broadcasting audio recordings
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — A ban on broadcasting court audio recordings in Maryland will end Jan. 1, after the state’s highest court approved new rules regarding the release of court recordings.

The Maryland Supreme Court approved the change during a meeting Tuesday.

The Daily Record reports that starting next year, the public will be able to obtain copies of audio recordings and disseminate or broadcast them, though the recordings will first be subject to a redaction process to shield sensitive information.

Retired Judge Alan Wilner, who chairs Maryland’s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, said the committee aimed to provide public access to audio recordings while also safeguarding vulnerable witnesses and victims of crime.

When the change takes effect, a judge would be required to find there is “clear and convincing evidence” that there is a compelling reason for a redaction. That could include reasons such as protecting a vulnerable witness or a defendant’s right to a fair trial, and that “no substantial harm” will be caused by the redaction.

The redaction would only apply to copies of the audio recording that are given out to the public. Members of the public could still listen to the complete recording upon request by coming to court in person, but they would not be able to keep or broadcast the unredacted version.

The redactions should be “as narrow as practicable in scope and duration to effectuate the interest sought to be protected, according to the proposal approved by the court.

The Maryland court changed the rule, which was known as the “broadcast ban,” after a federal court last year ruled that it was unconstitutional to prohibit the broadcast of legally obtained recordings of court hearings.