Maryland
States sue US government over deal ending ban on triggers that make some rifles fire more rapidly
Sixteen states have sued the Trump administration over its plan to allow the sale of forced-reset triggers that make semiautomatic rifles fire more rapidly and return devices already seized to their owners.
The suit announced Monday argues that returning the triggers would violate federal law, pose a threat to residents and law enforcement and worsen gun violence. It was filed in federal court in Maryland.
There had been several legal battles over the devices, which replace the typical trigger on an AR-15-style rifle. The Biden administration had previously argued the triggers qualify as machine guns under federal law because constant finger pressure on the triggers will keep a rifle firing, essentially creating an illegal machine gun.
Rare Breed Triggers, the maker of the devices, had argued that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was wrong in its classification and ignored demands to stop selling the triggers before being sued by the Biden administration.
The Justice Department reached a deal announced last month to allow the sale of forced-reset triggers with Rare Breed Triggers, which was previously represented by David Warrington, Trump’s current White House counsel.
Under the settlement, Rare Breed Triggers agreed not to develop such devices to be used on handguns, according to the Justice Department. The settlement requires the ATF to return triggers that it had seized or that owners had voluntarily surrendered to the government.
The states’ lawsuit is being led by the attorneys general of Delaware, Maryland and New Jersey. Other states involved are Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, along with the District of Columbia.
Florida
5 Proud Boys sue US government over Jan. 6 prosecutions
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Five members of the Proud Boys, a far-right militant group, claim their constitutional rights were violated when they were prosecuted for their participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to a lawsuit filed Friday.
The lawsuit was filed in Orlando federal court by former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, Ethan Nordean and Dominic Pezzola. It seeks unspecified compensatory damages plus 6% interest and $100 million plus interest in punitive damages.
“There was hostages in this country,” Tarrio said during a news conference Friday afternoon. “It’s not about any other country today, and that’s why this lawsuit is so important to bring back law and order into our system.”
The lawsuit claims the men were arrested with insufficient probable cause and that government agents later “found” fake incriminating evidence. They also claim they were held for years in pretrial detention, often in solitary confinement.
“The Plaintiffs themselves did not obstruct the proceedings at the Capitol, destroy government property, resist arrest, conspire to impede the police, or participate in civil disorder, nor did they plan for or order anyone else to do so,” the lawsuit said.
Tarrio, Biggs, Rehl and Nordean were all convicted of seditious conspiracy and other crimes for their participation in the Capitol riot that sought to stop Congress from certifying former U.S. President Joe Biden’s win over President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Pezzola was acquitted on the conspiracy charge but convicted of stealing a police officer’s riot shield and using it to smash a window.
After returning to office earlier this year, Trump granted pardons to almost all of the more than 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol. While Tarrio received a pardon, the other four plaintiffs had their sentences commuted. The lawsuit said all four applied for pardons on May 13.
The U.S. Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
Washington
Judge says administration can dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday denied a request by the American Library Association to halt the Trump administration’s further dismantling of an agency that funds and promotes libraries across the country, saying that recent court decisions suggested his court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had previously agreed to temporarily block the Republican administration, saying that plaintiffs were likely to show that Trump doesn’t have the legal authority to unilaterally shutter the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which was created by Congress.
But in Friday’s ruling, Leon wrote that as much as the “Court laments the Executive Branch’s efforts to cut off this lifeline for libraries and museums,” recent court decisions suggested that the case should be heard in a separate court dedicated to contractual claims.
He cited the Supreme Court’s decision allowing the administration to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training money despite a lower court order barring the cuts, saying that cases seeking reinstatement of federal grants should be heard in the Court of Federal Claims.
The American Library Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees filed a lawsuit to stop the administration from gutting the institute after President Donald Trump signed a March 14 executive order that refers to it and several other federal agencies as “unnecessary.”
The agency’s appointed acting director then placed many agency staff members on administrative leave, sent termination notices to most of them, began canceling grants and contracts and fired all members of the National Museum and Library Services Board.
The institute has roughly 75 employees and issued more than $266 million in grants last year.
However, a Rhode Island judge’s order prohibiting the government from shutting down the museum and library services institute in a separate case brought by several states remains in place. The administration is appealing that order as well.
California
Porn site founder accused of sex trafficking pleads guilty and faces life sentence
SAN DIEGO (AP) — The founder of a California-based porn empire that recruited women with false modeling offers pleaded guilty to sex trafficking charges in a federal court, authorities said.
Michael James Pratt pleaded guilty Thursday in federal court in San Diego, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. He faces a possible life sentence when he is sentenced Sept. 25.
Pratt, 42, was on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list when he was arrested in Madrid in 2022, three years after he fled while facing sex trafficking charges.
Federal prosecutors said Pratt and his co-defendants used force, fraud and coercion to recruit hundreds of women, many of whom were in their late teens, for their adult videos.
A New Zealand native, he founded the now-defunct GirlsDoPorn website in San Diego. In 2019, he and others were charged in San Diego with sex crimes after being targeted in a civil lawsuit by 22 women who claimed they were victimized by fraud and breach of contract.
The women said they were plied with alcohol and marijuana before being rushed through signing a contract, which they were not allowed to read. Some said they were sexually assaulted and held in hotel rooms unwillingly until adult filming had ended.
A judge in 2020 found in favor of the women and handed down a $12.7 million judgment against Pratt, Matthew Isaac Wolfe and adult producer and performer Ruben Andre Garcia.
Wolfe, who handled day-to-day operations, finances, marketing and filming for the website, pleaded guilty in 2022 to a single federal count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. He was sentenced last year to 14 years in federal prison.
The other co-defendants also pleaded guilty. Garcia was sentenced to 20 years in prison and cameraman Theodore Gyi received a four-year sentence.
Valorie Moser, a former bookkeeper for the website, also pleaded guilty last year. She’s scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 12.
London
UK judge warns of risk to justice after lawyers cited fake AI-generated cases in court
LONDON (AP) — Lawyers have cited fake cases generated by artificial intelligence in court proceedings in England, a judge has said — warning that attorneys could be prosecuted if they don’t check the accuracy of their research.
High Court justice Victoria Sharp said the misuse of AI has “serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system.”
In the latest example of how judicial systems around the world are grappling with how to handle the increasing presence of artificial intelligence in court, Sharp and fellow judge Jeremy Johnson chastised lawyers in two recent cases in a ruling on Friday.
They were asked to rule after lower court judges raised concerns about “suspected use by lawyers of generative artificial intelligence tools to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which are not then checked,” leading to false information being put before the court.
In a ruling written by Sharp, the judges said that in a 90 million pound ($120 million) lawsuit over an alleged breach of a financing agreement involving the Qatar National Bank, a lawyer cited 18 cases that did not exist.
The client in the case, Hamad Al-Haroun, apologized for unintentionally misleading the court with false information produced by publicly available AI tools, and said he was responsible, rather than his solicitor Abid Hussain.
But Sharp said it was “extraordinary that the lawyer was relying on the client for the accuracy of their legal research, rather than the other way around.”
In the other incident, a lawyer cited five fake cases in a tenant’s housing claim against the London Borough of Haringey. Barrister Sarah Forey denied using AI, but Sharp said she had “not provided to the court a coherent explanation for what happened.”
The judges referred the lawyers in both cases to their professional regulators, but did not take more serious action.
Sharp said providing false material as if it were genuine could be considered contempt of court or, in the “most egregious cases,” perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
She said in the judgment that AI is a “powerful technology” and a “useful tool” for the law.
“Artificial intelligence is a tool that carries with it risks as well as opportunities,” the judge said. “Its use must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained.”
States sue US government over deal ending ban on triggers that make some rifles fire more rapidly
Sixteen states have sued the Trump administration over its plan to allow the sale of forced-reset triggers that make semiautomatic rifles fire more rapidly and return devices already seized to their owners.
The suit announced Monday argues that returning the triggers would violate federal law, pose a threat to residents and law enforcement and worsen gun violence. It was filed in federal court in Maryland.
There had been several legal battles over the devices, which replace the typical trigger on an AR-15-style rifle. The Biden administration had previously argued the triggers qualify as machine guns under federal law because constant finger pressure on the triggers will keep a rifle firing, essentially creating an illegal machine gun.
Rare Breed Triggers, the maker of the devices, had argued that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was wrong in its classification and ignored demands to stop selling the triggers before being sued by the Biden administration.
The Justice Department reached a deal announced last month to allow the sale of forced-reset triggers with Rare Breed Triggers, which was previously represented by David Warrington, Trump’s current White House counsel.
Under the settlement, Rare Breed Triggers agreed not to develop such devices to be used on handguns, according to the Justice Department. The settlement requires the ATF to return triggers that it had seized or that owners had voluntarily surrendered to the government.
The states’ lawsuit is being led by the attorneys general of Delaware, Maryland and New Jersey. Other states involved are Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, along with the District of Columbia.
Florida
5 Proud Boys sue US government over Jan. 6 prosecutions
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Five members of the Proud Boys, a far-right militant group, claim their constitutional rights were violated when they were prosecuted for their participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to a lawsuit filed Friday.
The lawsuit was filed in Orlando federal court by former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, Ethan Nordean and Dominic Pezzola. It seeks unspecified compensatory damages plus 6% interest and $100 million plus interest in punitive damages.
“There was hostages in this country,” Tarrio said during a news conference Friday afternoon. “It’s not about any other country today, and that’s why this lawsuit is so important to bring back law and order into our system.”
The lawsuit claims the men were arrested with insufficient probable cause and that government agents later “found” fake incriminating evidence. They also claim they were held for years in pretrial detention, often in solitary confinement.
“The Plaintiffs themselves did not obstruct the proceedings at the Capitol, destroy government property, resist arrest, conspire to impede the police, or participate in civil disorder, nor did they plan for or order anyone else to do so,” the lawsuit said.
Tarrio, Biggs, Rehl and Nordean were all convicted of seditious conspiracy and other crimes for their participation in the Capitol riot that sought to stop Congress from certifying former U.S. President Joe Biden’s win over President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Pezzola was acquitted on the conspiracy charge but convicted of stealing a police officer’s riot shield and using it to smash a window.
After returning to office earlier this year, Trump granted pardons to almost all of the more than 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol. While Tarrio received a pardon, the other four plaintiffs had their sentences commuted. The lawsuit said all four applied for pardons on May 13.
The U.S. Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
Washington
Judge says administration can dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday denied a request by the American Library Association to halt the Trump administration’s further dismantling of an agency that funds and promotes libraries across the country, saying that recent court decisions suggested his court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had previously agreed to temporarily block the Republican administration, saying that plaintiffs were likely to show that Trump doesn’t have the legal authority to unilaterally shutter the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which was created by Congress.
But in Friday’s ruling, Leon wrote that as much as the “Court laments the Executive Branch’s efforts to cut off this lifeline for libraries and museums,” recent court decisions suggested that the case should be heard in a separate court dedicated to contractual claims.
He cited the Supreme Court’s decision allowing the administration to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training money despite a lower court order barring the cuts, saying that cases seeking reinstatement of federal grants should be heard in the Court of Federal Claims.
The American Library Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees filed a lawsuit to stop the administration from gutting the institute after President Donald Trump signed a March 14 executive order that refers to it and several other federal agencies as “unnecessary.”
The agency’s appointed acting director then placed many agency staff members on administrative leave, sent termination notices to most of them, began canceling grants and contracts and fired all members of the National Museum and Library Services Board.
The institute has roughly 75 employees and issued more than $266 million in grants last year.
However, a Rhode Island judge’s order prohibiting the government from shutting down the museum and library services institute in a separate case brought by several states remains in place. The administration is appealing that order as well.
California
Porn site founder accused of sex trafficking pleads guilty and faces life sentence
SAN DIEGO (AP) — The founder of a California-based porn empire that recruited women with false modeling offers pleaded guilty to sex trafficking charges in a federal court, authorities said.
Michael James Pratt pleaded guilty Thursday in federal court in San Diego, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. He faces a possible life sentence when he is sentenced Sept. 25.
Pratt, 42, was on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list when he was arrested in Madrid in 2022, three years after he fled while facing sex trafficking charges.
Federal prosecutors said Pratt and his co-defendants used force, fraud and coercion to recruit hundreds of women, many of whom were in their late teens, for their adult videos.
A New Zealand native, he founded the now-defunct GirlsDoPorn website in San Diego. In 2019, he and others were charged in San Diego with sex crimes after being targeted in a civil lawsuit by 22 women who claimed they were victimized by fraud and breach of contract.
The women said they were plied with alcohol and marijuana before being rushed through signing a contract, which they were not allowed to read. Some said they were sexually assaulted and held in hotel rooms unwillingly until adult filming had ended.
A judge in 2020 found in favor of the women and handed down a $12.7 million judgment against Pratt, Matthew Isaac Wolfe and adult producer and performer Ruben Andre Garcia.
Wolfe, who handled day-to-day operations, finances, marketing and filming for the website, pleaded guilty in 2022 to a single federal count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. He was sentenced last year to 14 years in federal prison.
The other co-defendants also pleaded guilty. Garcia was sentenced to 20 years in prison and cameraman Theodore Gyi received a four-year sentence.
Valorie Moser, a former bookkeeper for the website, also pleaded guilty last year. She’s scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 12.
London
UK judge warns of risk to justice after lawyers cited fake AI-generated cases in court
LONDON (AP) — Lawyers have cited fake cases generated by artificial intelligence in court proceedings in England, a judge has said — warning that attorneys could be prosecuted if they don’t check the accuracy of their research.
High Court justice Victoria Sharp said the misuse of AI has “serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system.”
In the latest example of how judicial systems around the world are grappling with how to handle the increasing presence of artificial intelligence in court, Sharp and fellow judge Jeremy Johnson chastised lawyers in two recent cases in a ruling on Friday.
They were asked to rule after lower court judges raised concerns about “suspected use by lawyers of generative artificial intelligence tools to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which are not then checked,” leading to false information being put before the court.
In a ruling written by Sharp, the judges said that in a 90 million pound ($120 million) lawsuit over an alleged breach of a financing agreement involving the Qatar National Bank, a lawyer cited 18 cases that did not exist.
The client in the case, Hamad Al-Haroun, apologized for unintentionally misleading the court with false information produced by publicly available AI tools, and said he was responsible, rather than his solicitor Abid Hussain.
But Sharp said it was “extraordinary that the lawyer was relying on the client for the accuracy of their legal research, rather than the other way around.”
In the other incident, a lawyer cited five fake cases in a tenant’s housing claim against the London Borough of Haringey. Barrister Sarah Forey denied using AI, but Sharp said she had “not provided to the court a coherent explanation for what happened.”
The judges referred the lawyers in both cases to their professional regulators, but did not take more serious action.
Sharp said providing false material as if it were genuine could be considered contempt of court or, in the “most egregious cases,” perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
She said in the judgment that AI is a “powerful technology” and a “useful tool” for the law.
“Artificial intelligence is a tool that carries with it risks as well as opportunities,” the judge said. “Its use must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained.”
