New York
Hunter Biden sues Fox News over explicit images featured in a streaming series
NEW YORK (AP) — Hunter Biden accused Fox News in a lawsuit of unlawfully publishing explicit images of him as part of a streaming series.
The president’s son filed the lawsuit Sunday in state court in Manhattan over images in “The Trial of Hunter Biden,” which debuted on the streaming service Fox Nation in 2022. The series features a “mock trial” of Hunter Biden on charges he has not faced and it includes images of Biden in the nude and engaged in sex acts, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims the dissemination of intimate images without his consent violated New York’s so-called revenge porn law.
“Fox published and disseminated these Intimate Images to its vast audience of millions as part of an entertainment program in order to humiliate, harass, annoy and alarm Mr. Biden and to tarnish his reputation,” according to the lawsuit.
A Fox News spokesperson called it an “entirely politically motivated lawsuit” that was “devoid of merit” in an emailed statement. The statement noted that attorneys for Biden sent them a letter demanding its removal from streaming platforms in April 2024.
“The program was removed within days of the letter, in an abundance of caution, but Hunter Biden is a public figure who has been the subject of multiple investigations and is now a convicted felon. Consistent with the First Amendment, Fox News has accurately covered the newsworthy events of Mr. Biden’s own making, and we look forward to vindicating our rights in court,” according to the emailed statement.
Hunter Biden was convicted last month of three felony charges related to the purchase of a revolver in 2018 when, prosecutors argued, the president’s son lied on a mandatory gun-purchase form by saying he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.
The mock trial in the series involved charges of bribery and improper financial dealings with foreign governments, charges that have not been brought against Hunter Biden, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and an order directing Fox to remove any copies of the explicit images.
The lawsuit claims promotional materials have not been entirely removed by Fox and that the program is still available on some third-party streaming platforms.
Nevada
Former Raiders coach loses bid for high court reconsideration in NFL emails lawsuit
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Jon Gruden lost a bid Monday for three Nevada Supreme Court justices to reconsider whether a lawsuit he filed against the NFL over emails leaked to the media before he resigned as coach of the Las Vegas Raiders should be heard in court or in private arbitration.
Attorneys for Gruden, the league and an NFL spokesman didn’t respond to messages after a two-word order — “Rehearing denied” — was posted on a court website. It wasn’t immediately clear whether Gruden will seek a hearing before the entire seven-member state high court.
Gruden’s lawyers sought a rehearing after the three-justice panel split in a May 14 decision that said the league can move the civil contract interference and conspiracy case out of state court and into arbitration that might be overseen by one of the defendants, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.
Gruden’s lawsuit, filed in November 2021, alleges Goodell and the league forced him to resign from the Raiders by leaking racist, sexist and homophobic emails that he sent years earlier when he was at ESPN.
The two-justice majority said Gruden understood the NFL constitution allowed for arbitration to resolve disputes, and said it wasn’t clear whether Goodell or a designated third-party arbitrator would hear Gruden’s case.
The dissenting justice wrote that it would be “outrageous” for Goodell to arbitrate a dispute in which he is a named defendant.
Gruden was the Raiders’ head coach when the team moved in 2020 to Las Vegas from Oakland, California. He left the team in November 2021 with more than six seasons remaining on his record 10-year, $100 million contract.
The league appealed to the state high court after a judge in Las Vegas decided in May 2022 that Gruden’s claim that the league intentionally leaked only his documents could show evidence of “specific intent” or an act designed to cause a particular result.
Gruden was with ESPN when the emails were sent from 2011 to 2018 to former Washington Commanders executive Bruce Allen. They were found amid some 650,000 emails the league obtained during a workplace culture investigation of the Washington team.
Gruden is seeking monetary damages, alleging that selective disclosure of the emails and their publication by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times destroyed his career and scuttled endorsement contracts.
Gruden had previously coached in the NFL from 1990 to 2008, including stints in Oakland and with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, whom he led to a Super Bowl title in 2003. He spent several years as a TV analyst for ESPN before being hired by the Raiders again in 2018.
Massachusetts
More evaluation ordered for suspect charged in stabbings at movie theater, McDonald’s
PLYMOUTH, Mass. (AP) — A Massachusetts individual charged with assault with intent to murder after six people, including four girls at a movie theater, were stabbed and wounded in separate attacks, has been re-committed to Bridgewater State Hospital for further evaluation on criminal responsibility.
A judge ordered the extended evaluation after Jared Ravizza, 26, of Chilmark, a town on Martha’s Vineyard, appeared in Plymouth District Court on Monday.
A lawyer representing Ravizza declined to comment.
Ravizza was arraigned in May in connection with the stabbings of two employees at a McDonald’s in Plymouth.
Ravizza has also been charged with eight counts of assault in connection with the stabbings of the four girls, ages 9 to 17, at the movie theater in Braintree on May 25.
Authorities said that attack occurred before Ravizza drove south to Plymouth, where the fast food workers were stabbed.
A dangerousness hearing has been continued to next week.
Washington
Appeals court allows part of Biden student loan repayment plan to go forward
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court has allowed the U.S. Education Department to move ahead with a plan to lower monthly payments for millions of student loan borrowers, putting on hold a ruling last week by a lower court.
The ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals puts back on track a central part of President Joe Biden’s efforts to address student debt — a rule that lowers from 10% of discretionary income to 5% the amount that some borrowers qualifying for a repayment plan need to pay.
The reduced payment threshold was set to take effect July 1, but federal judges in Kansas and Missouri last week blocked much of the administration’s student loan repayment plan in two separate rulings. The ruling on Sunday means the department can move ahead with the reduced payments already calculated while it pursues an appeal.
The rulings have created a difficult environment for borrowers to navigate, said Persis Yu, deputy executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, which advocates for eliminating student debt. The stay granted by the 10th Circuit is temporary, Yu said, leaving many borrowers in the dark about future financial obligations.
“Borrowers are having to make decisions right now about their financial lives, and they don’t know the very basic information that they need in order to make informed decisions,” Yu said.
The Biden administration created the SAVE plan last year to replace other existing income-based repayment plans offered by the federal government. It allowed many to qualify for lower payments, and forgiveness was granted to borrowers who had made payments for at least 10 years and originally borrowed $12,000 or less.
U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said the Biden administrations remains committed “to our work to fix a broken student loan system and make college more affordable for more Americans.”
The appeals court ruling does not impact the injunction issued by a federal judge in Missouri, which prevents the Education Department from forgiving loan balances going forward.
The injunctions are the result of lawsuits from Republican-led states seeking to invalidate the Biden administration’s entire loan forgiveness program, which was first available to borrowers in the summer of 2023, and at least 150,000 have had their loans cancelled. The suing states argued that the administration’s plan was a workaround after the Supreme Court struck down the original plan for student loan forgiveness earlier that year.
Arkansas
Progressive groups not asking U.S. Supreme Court to review ruling limiting scope of Voting Rights Act
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Progressive groups in Arkansas have decided to not ask the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on a lower court’s ruling that private groups can’t sue under a key section of the federal Voting Rights Act.
The Arkansas Public Policy Panel and the Arkansas State Conference NAACP, which challenged Arkansas’ new state House districts under the law, did not file a petition by Friday’s deadline asking the high court to review the ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
John Williams, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, said the decision to not seek review did not signal agreement with the court ruling that the groups believe is “radically wrong.” The ACLU represents the groups in the case.
Williams said they didn’t seek review because they believe there’s still a mechanism for private groups to sue under another section of federal civil rights law.
“Because that still exists, there was no need to bring this up before the Supreme Court,” Williams said Monday.
The groups’ decision avoids a fight before the high court over a ruling that civil rights groups say erodes the law aimed at prohibiting racial discrimination in voting. The groups have argued last year’s ruling upends decades of precedent and would remove a key tool for voters to stand up for their rights.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January denied a request for the case to go before the full circuit court after a panel ruled 2-1 last year that only the U.S. attorney general can enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act requires political maps to include districts where minority populations’ preferred candidates can win elections. Lawsuits have long been brought under the section to try to ensure that Black voters have adequate political representation in places with a long history of racism, including many Southern states.
The Arkansas lawsuit challenged the state House redistricting plan, which was approved in 2021 by the all-Republican state Board of Apportionment.
The 8th Circuit ruling applies only to federal courts covered by the district, which includes Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.
Arkansas’ Republican attorney general, Tim Griffin, called the groups’ decision to not take the issue to the Supreme Court a “win for Arkansas.”
“(The 8th Circuit ruling) confirmed that decisions about how to enforce the Voting Rights Act should be made by elected officials, not special interest groups,” Griffin said in a statement.
Hunter Biden sues Fox News over explicit images featured in a streaming series
NEW YORK (AP) — Hunter Biden accused Fox News in a lawsuit of unlawfully publishing explicit images of him as part of a streaming series.
The president’s son filed the lawsuit Sunday in state court in Manhattan over images in “The Trial of Hunter Biden,” which debuted on the streaming service Fox Nation in 2022. The series features a “mock trial” of Hunter Biden on charges he has not faced and it includes images of Biden in the nude and engaged in sex acts, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims the dissemination of intimate images without his consent violated New York’s so-called revenge porn law.
“Fox published and disseminated these Intimate Images to its vast audience of millions as part of an entertainment program in order to humiliate, harass, annoy and alarm Mr. Biden and to tarnish his reputation,” according to the lawsuit.
A Fox News spokesperson called it an “entirely politically motivated lawsuit” that was “devoid of merit” in an emailed statement. The statement noted that attorneys for Biden sent them a letter demanding its removal from streaming platforms in April 2024.
“The program was removed within days of the letter, in an abundance of caution, but Hunter Biden is a public figure who has been the subject of multiple investigations and is now a convicted felon. Consistent with the First Amendment, Fox News has accurately covered the newsworthy events of Mr. Biden’s own making, and we look forward to vindicating our rights in court,” according to the emailed statement.
Hunter Biden was convicted last month of three felony charges related to the purchase of a revolver in 2018 when, prosecutors argued, the president’s son lied on a mandatory gun-purchase form by saying he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.
The mock trial in the series involved charges of bribery and improper financial dealings with foreign governments, charges that have not been brought against Hunter Biden, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and an order directing Fox to remove any copies of the explicit images.
The lawsuit claims promotional materials have not been entirely removed by Fox and that the program is still available on some third-party streaming platforms.
Nevada
Former Raiders coach loses bid for high court reconsideration in NFL emails lawsuit
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Jon Gruden lost a bid Monday for three Nevada Supreme Court justices to reconsider whether a lawsuit he filed against the NFL over emails leaked to the media before he resigned as coach of the Las Vegas Raiders should be heard in court or in private arbitration.
Attorneys for Gruden, the league and an NFL spokesman didn’t respond to messages after a two-word order — “Rehearing denied” — was posted on a court website. It wasn’t immediately clear whether Gruden will seek a hearing before the entire seven-member state high court.
Gruden’s lawyers sought a rehearing after the three-justice panel split in a May 14 decision that said the league can move the civil contract interference and conspiracy case out of state court and into arbitration that might be overseen by one of the defendants, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.
Gruden’s lawsuit, filed in November 2021, alleges Goodell and the league forced him to resign from the Raiders by leaking racist, sexist and homophobic emails that he sent years earlier when he was at ESPN.
The two-justice majority said Gruden understood the NFL constitution allowed for arbitration to resolve disputes, and said it wasn’t clear whether Goodell or a designated third-party arbitrator would hear Gruden’s case.
The dissenting justice wrote that it would be “outrageous” for Goodell to arbitrate a dispute in which he is a named defendant.
Gruden was the Raiders’ head coach when the team moved in 2020 to Las Vegas from Oakland, California. He left the team in November 2021 with more than six seasons remaining on his record 10-year, $100 million contract.
The league appealed to the state high court after a judge in Las Vegas decided in May 2022 that Gruden’s claim that the league intentionally leaked only his documents could show evidence of “specific intent” or an act designed to cause a particular result.
Gruden was with ESPN when the emails were sent from 2011 to 2018 to former Washington Commanders executive Bruce Allen. They were found amid some 650,000 emails the league obtained during a workplace culture investigation of the Washington team.
Gruden is seeking monetary damages, alleging that selective disclosure of the emails and their publication by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times destroyed his career and scuttled endorsement contracts.
Gruden had previously coached in the NFL from 1990 to 2008, including stints in Oakland and with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, whom he led to a Super Bowl title in 2003. He spent several years as a TV analyst for ESPN before being hired by the Raiders again in 2018.
Massachusetts
More evaluation ordered for suspect charged in stabbings at movie theater, McDonald’s
PLYMOUTH, Mass. (AP) — A Massachusetts individual charged with assault with intent to murder after six people, including four girls at a movie theater, were stabbed and wounded in separate attacks, has been re-committed to Bridgewater State Hospital for further evaluation on criminal responsibility.
A judge ordered the extended evaluation after Jared Ravizza, 26, of Chilmark, a town on Martha’s Vineyard, appeared in Plymouth District Court on Monday.
A lawyer representing Ravizza declined to comment.
Ravizza was arraigned in May in connection with the stabbings of two employees at a McDonald’s in Plymouth.
Ravizza has also been charged with eight counts of assault in connection with the stabbings of the four girls, ages 9 to 17, at the movie theater in Braintree on May 25.
Authorities said that attack occurred before Ravizza drove south to Plymouth, where the fast food workers were stabbed.
A dangerousness hearing has been continued to next week.
Washington
Appeals court allows part of Biden student loan repayment plan to go forward
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court has allowed the U.S. Education Department to move ahead with a plan to lower monthly payments for millions of student loan borrowers, putting on hold a ruling last week by a lower court.
The ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals puts back on track a central part of President Joe Biden’s efforts to address student debt — a rule that lowers from 10% of discretionary income to 5% the amount that some borrowers qualifying for a repayment plan need to pay.
The reduced payment threshold was set to take effect July 1, but federal judges in Kansas and Missouri last week blocked much of the administration’s student loan repayment plan in two separate rulings. The ruling on Sunday means the department can move ahead with the reduced payments already calculated while it pursues an appeal.
The rulings have created a difficult environment for borrowers to navigate, said Persis Yu, deputy executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, which advocates for eliminating student debt. The stay granted by the 10th Circuit is temporary, Yu said, leaving many borrowers in the dark about future financial obligations.
“Borrowers are having to make decisions right now about their financial lives, and they don’t know the very basic information that they need in order to make informed decisions,” Yu said.
The Biden administration created the SAVE plan last year to replace other existing income-based repayment plans offered by the federal government. It allowed many to qualify for lower payments, and forgiveness was granted to borrowers who had made payments for at least 10 years and originally borrowed $12,000 or less.
U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said the Biden administrations remains committed “to our work to fix a broken student loan system and make college more affordable for more Americans.”
The appeals court ruling does not impact the injunction issued by a federal judge in Missouri, which prevents the Education Department from forgiving loan balances going forward.
The injunctions are the result of lawsuits from Republican-led states seeking to invalidate the Biden administration’s entire loan forgiveness program, which was first available to borrowers in the summer of 2023, and at least 150,000 have had their loans cancelled. The suing states argued that the administration’s plan was a workaround after the Supreme Court struck down the original plan for student loan forgiveness earlier that year.
Arkansas
Progressive groups not asking U.S. Supreme Court to review ruling limiting scope of Voting Rights Act
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Progressive groups in Arkansas have decided to not ask the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on a lower court’s ruling that private groups can’t sue under a key section of the federal Voting Rights Act.
The Arkansas Public Policy Panel and the Arkansas State Conference NAACP, which challenged Arkansas’ new state House districts under the law, did not file a petition by Friday’s deadline asking the high court to review the ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
John Williams, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, said the decision to not seek review did not signal agreement with the court ruling that the groups believe is “radically wrong.” The ACLU represents the groups in the case.
Williams said they didn’t seek review because they believe there’s still a mechanism for private groups to sue under another section of federal civil rights law.
“Because that still exists, there was no need to bring this up before the Supreme Court,” Williams said Monday.
The groups’ decision avoids a fight before the high court over a ruling that civil rights groups say erodes the law aimed at prohibiting racial discrimination in voting. The groups have argued last year’s ruling upends decades of precedent and would remove a key tool for voters to stand up for their rights.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January denied a request for the case to go before the full circuit court after a panel ruled 2-1 last year that only the U.S. attorney general can enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act requires political maps to include districts where minority populations’ preferred candidates can win elections. Lawsuits have long been brought under the section to try to ensure that Black voters have adequate political representation in places with a long history of racism, including many Southern states.
The Arkansas lawsuit challenged the state House redistricting plan, which was approved in 2021 by the all-Republican state Board of Apportionment.
The 8th Circuit ruling applies only to federal courts covered by the district, which includes Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.
Arkansas’ Republican attorney general, Tim Griffin, called the groups’ decision to not take the issue to the Supreme Court a “win for Arkansas.”
“(The 8th Circuit ruling) confirmed that decisions about how to enforce the Voting Rights Act should be made by elected officials, not special interest groups,” Griffin said in a statement.
