Massachusetts
Federal judge dismisses another DOJ lawsuit seeking voter data
A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice seeking Massachusetts’ state voter rolls, marking the latest setback in a wide-ranging effort by the Trump administration to collect detailed data on the nation’s voters.
The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Leo Sorokin marks at least the fifth time a judge has rejected similar attempts by the Justice Department. Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said the U.S. attorney general’s office did not take the necessary steps required to access voter rolls, as outlined in federal law.
“Put simply, the statute requires a statement of why the Attorney General demands production of the requested records,” Sorokin wrote. That statement has to be factual, “not just a conceivable or possible basis.”
In an emailed response, the Justice Department said it “does not comment on ongoing litigation.”
It has said it’s seeking the voter data as part of an effort to ensure election security, but Democratic and Republican officials in several states have refused, saying the demand violates state and federal privacy laws. Some have raised concerns that federal officials will use the sensitive data for other purposes, such as searching for potential noncitizens.
During a hearing last month in Rhode Island, a DOJ attorney told a federal judge that the department was seeking unredacted voter roll information so it could be shared with the Department of Homeland Security to check citizenship status.
DHS over the past year has beefed up the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, program, for just this purpose.
“Our intention is to run this against the DHS SAVE database,” DOJ attorney Eric Neff told U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy during a March 26 hearing challenging the federal government’s authority to access the voter data.
The Justice Department has sued at least 30 states and the District of Columbia seeking to force release of the data, which includes dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.
At least 12 states have either provided or promised to provide their detailed voter registration lists to the department, according to the Brennan Center: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.
In the Massachusetts case, the judge found that the Justice Department failed to follow the requirements for demanding the voter rolls set by a 1960 civil rights law.
That law, enacted as part of an effort to end racial discrimination in elections, says state voter records must be made available for inspection by the U.S. attorney general if the office includes a statement outlining why the information is being demanded and how it will be used.
The department’s letter demanding Massachusetts’ voter data made no reference to the Civil Rights Act and didn’t cite any concerns about the way Massachusetts complied with federal voting laws, the judge said. Most importantly, it didn’t include any factual basis for the demand, Sorokin wrote.
In court documents, the Justice Department said it was demanding the data to check for “Massachusetts’ possible lack of compliance” with federal voter registration list requirements. It also said the Civil Rights Act was designed to be an investigatory tool to identify federal election law violations and argued that the U.S. attorney general can’t be required to prove a violation before seeking evidence of one.
“These arguments miss the point,” Sorokin wrote.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell called the ruling a decisive win for voters and the rule of law.
“The privacy of our voters is not up for negotiation, and I will continue to defend the integrity and security of our elections from the Trump Administration’s cruel and harmful agenda,” she said in a news release.
Four federal judges in other states have dismissed similar lawsuits from the Department of Justice.
A federal judge in Michigan found the laws cited by the Justice Department do not require the disclosure of the voter records sought by the federal government. A federal judge in California said the administration “may not unilaterally usurp the authority over elections,” which the Constitution gives to the states and Congress. A federal judge in Oregon said the federal government was not entitled to unredacted voter registration lists containing sensitive data.
A federal judge in Georgia dismissed a DOJ lawsuit because he found it had been filed in the wrong city. The federal government then refiled the lawsuit in the city specified by the judge; that case is ongoing.
The Justice Department has appealed the Oregon, California and Michigan dismissals.
New York
Live Nation antitrust trial nears end as lawyer for 34 states labels the concert giant a monopolist
NEW YORK (AP) — A lawyer for 34 states suing Live Nation Entertainment tried to convince a jury Thursday during an antitrust trial ‘s closing arguments that the company and its ticketing arm, Ticketmaster, are monopolizing the industry and driving up concert prices.
But a lawyer for Live Nation insisted in Manhattan federal court that there is more competition than ever and the company plays fair amid a booming concert business across America.
The attorney, David Marriott, said the states failed to prove that Live Nation had acted as a monopolist.
“They can’t, and they didn’t,” he said.
The federal government led the civil claims case until it settled the lawsuit it brought in 2024 several weeks ago, saying it had won important concessions from Live Nation, particularly in the sale of tickets at dozens of the company’s
amphitheaters. The settlement delayed the trial for a week while states conducted mostly unsuccessful negotiations with Live Nation.
After closing arguments concluded, jurors were instructed on the law by Judge Arun Subramanian. They were expected to start deliberations Friday.
In his closing, attorney Jeffrey Kessler argued on behalf of the states that evidence has shown that the companies “violated antitrust laws and it is time to hold them accountable.”
He reminded jurors that since it was a civil trial, they only needed to find that the states had proven by a preponderance of the evidence — more than 50% — that Live Nation and Ticketmaster illegally wielded monopoly power.
Kessler labeled the company a “monopolistic bully” and said it had employed practices that “kept digging the moat around the monopoly castle in order to protect their market position.”
Live Nation’s control of 86% of the market for concerts and 73% of the overall market when sports events are included, showed it had monopoly power, he said.
Marriott countered that Live Nation and Ticketmaster were merely reaping the fruits of decades of hard work that created the best products in the industry.
“We are the biggest entertainment company and ticketer in the country. We’re not hiding from that fact,” he said. “We are big. That is not against the laws in the United States. Success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States.”
Marriott also said the company tries to “outflank and outcompete” its competitors and the jury should not punish the company because the states had shown some communications in which employees who are “fierce competitors” talk about crushing the competition.
He defended the company decision not to immediately fire an employee who acknowledged from the witness stand that he had written a series of messages from late 2021 through early 2023 in which he mocked customers as “so stupid” and said the company was “robbing them blind, baby.”
“People say, sometimes, stupid stuff,” Marriott said, noting the comments were made about the price of lawn chairs and parking. “We don’t condone that. But we also don’t just ax somebody because they made a mistake years in the past.”
Meanwhile, he said, venues and artists are doing better than ever and fans are benefiting from a robust and thriving entertainment industry.
“Our job is to help venues and artists make money. We don’t make excuses for that,” Marriott said.
Washington
Plaintiffs settle with Trump administration, halting cuts to agency that funds U.S. libraries
WASHINGTON (AP) — Plaintiffs challenging the Trump administration’s cost-cutting measures against an agency that funds and promotes libraries across the U.S. said Thursday they settled the case with the Justice Department in a deal that would reverse some of the steps taken.
The American Library Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees said that they had reached an agreement with the Justice Department that will allow the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences to continue awarding grants and operating programs that support libraries and museums.
The White House referred questions to the Justice Department. The Civil Division of the Justice Department, which agreed to the settlement, did not immediately comment.
The two organizations filed a lawsuit last May, spearheaded by the group Democracy Forward, to stop the administration from gutting the IMLS after President Donald Trump signed a March 14 executive order that referred to it and several
other federal agencies as “unnecessary.”
The measures that set in motion were part of a broader attempt by the administration to save money by slashing staff, grants and programs in the federal government.
Staff was subsequently placed on administrative leave with many receiving termination notices. The agency’s then acting director also began canceling grants and contracts and fired the members of the National Museum and Library Services Board.
“When the administration began shuttering IMLS last year, it set off a chain reaction. Libraries across the country started cutting hours, staff and services people rely on – after-school programs, support for job seekers and connection for older adults,” said American Library Association president Sam Helmick in a press statement.
The settlement said all reductions in force to the staff in 2025 have been rescinded and all employees who received them are authorized to return to work. IMLS will not issue any more RIFs in order “to effectuate” the purpose of the executive order, the settlement said.
Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, called the settlement a victory for every community that depends on libraries and museums.
The plaintiffs will file a joint stipulation of dismissal of the case without prejudice in seven days if the government adheres to terms of the agreement.
The settlement announcement comes three days after a federal judge in Rhode Island approved an administration request to withdraw its appeal of a federal district court opinion in a separate lawsuit filed by 21 attorneys general.
IMLS is the only federal agency tasked with providing funding for the nation’s libraries. It was established in 1996 by a Republican-led Congress and has a mission to “advance, support, and empower America’s museums, libraries, and related organizations through grantmaking, research, and policy development.”
The institute combined the services of previous government agencies, including the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science and the Institute of Museum Services.
It distributes thousands of grants nationwide, totaling in recent years to more than $200 million annually.
Federal judge dismisses another DOJ lawsuit seeking voter data
A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice seeking Massachusetts’ state voter rolls, marking the latest setback in a wide-ranging effort by the Trump administration to collect detailed data on the nation’s voters.
The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Leo Sorokin marks at least the fifth time a judge has rejected similar attempts by the Justice Department. Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said the U.S. attorney general’s office did not take the necessary steps required to access voter rolls, as outlined in federal law.
“Put simply, the statute requires a statement of why the Attorney General demands production of the requested records,” Sorokin wrote. That statement has to be factual, “not just a conceivable or possible basis.”
In an emailed response, the Justice Department said it “does not comment on ongoing litigation.”
It has said it’s seeking the voter data as part of an effort to ensure election security, but Democratic and Republican officials in several states have refused, saying the demand violates state and federal privacy laws. Some have raised concerns that federal officials will use the sensitive data for other purposes, such as searching for potential noncitizens.
During a hearing last month in Rhode Island, a DOJ attorney told a federal judge that the department was seeking unredacted voter roll information so it could be shared with the Department of Homeland Security to check citizenship status.
DHS over the past year has beefed up the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, program, for just this purpose.
“Our intention is to run this against the DHS SAVE database,” DOJ attorney Eric Neff told U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy during a March 26 hearing challenging the federal government’s authority to access the voter data.
The Justice Department has sued at least 30 states and the District of Columbia seeking to force release of the data, which includes dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.
At least 12 states have either provided or promised to provide their detailed voter registration lists to the department, according to the Brennan Center: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.
In the Massachusetts case, the judge found that the Justice Department failed to follow the requirements for demanding the voter rolls set by a 1960 civil rights law.
That law, enacted as part of an effort to end racial discrimination in elections, says state voter records must be made available for inspection by the U.S. attorney general if the office includes a statement outlining why the information is being demanded and how it will be used.
The department’s letter demanding Massachusetts’ voter data made no reference to the Civil Rights Act and didn’t cite any concerns about the way Massachusetts complied with federal voting laws, the judge said. Most importantly, it didn’t include any factual basis for the demand, Sorokin wrote.
In court documents, the Justice Department said it was demanding the data to check for “Massachusetts’ possible lack of compliance” with federal voter registration list requirements. It also said the Civil Rights Act was designed to be an investigatory tool to identify federal election law violations and argued that the U.S. attorney general can’t be required to prove a violation before seeking evidence of one.
“These arguments miss the point,” Sorokin wrote.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell called the ruling a decisive win for voters and the rule of law.
“The privacy of our voters is not up for negotiation, and I will continue to defend the integrity and security of our elections from the Trump Administration’s cruel and harmful agenda,” she said in a news release.
Four federal judges in other states have dismissed similar lawsuits from the Department of Justice.
A federal judge in Michigan found the laws cited by the Justice Department do not require the disclosure of the voter records sought by the federal government. A federal judge in California said the administration “may not unilaterally usurp the authority over elections,” which the Constitution gives to the states and Congress. A federal judge in Oregon said the federal government was not entitled to unredacted voter registration lists containing sensitive data.
A federal judge in Georgia dismissed a DOJ lawsuit because he found it had been filed in the wrong city. The federal government then refiled the lawsuit in the city specified by the judge; that case is ongoing.
The Justice Department has appealed the Oregon, California and Michigan dismissals.
New York
Live Nation antitrust trial nears end as lawyer for 34 states labels the concert giant a monopolist
NEW YORK (AP) — A lawyer for 34 states suing Live Nation Entertainment tried to convince a jury Thursday during an antitrust trial ‘s closing arguments that the company and its ticketing arm, Ticketmaster, are monopolizing the industry and driving up concert prices.
But a lawyer for Live Nation insisted in Manhattan federal court that there is more competition than ever and the company plays fair amid a booming concert business across America.
The attorney, David Marriott, said the states failed to prove that Live Nation had acted as a monopolist.
“They can’t, and they didn’t,” he said.
The federal government led the civil claims case until it settled the lawsuit it brought in 2024 several weeks ago, saying it had won important concessions from Live Nation, particularly in the sale of tickets at dozens of the company’s
amphitheaters. The settlement delayed the trial for a week while states conducted mostly unsuccessful negotiations with Live Nation.
After closing arguments concluded, jurors were instructed on the law by Judge Arun Subramanian. They were expected to start deliberations Friday.
In his closing, attorney Jeffrey Kessler argued on behalf of the states that evidence has shown that the companies “violated antitrust laws and it is time to hold them accountable.”
He reminded jurors that since it was a civil trial, they only needed to find that the states had proven by a preponderance of the evidence — more than 50% — that Live Nation and Ticketmaster illegally wielded monopoly power.
Kessler labeled the company a “monopolistic bully” and said it had employed practices that “kept digging the moat around the monopoly castle in order to protect their market position.”
Live Nation’s control of 86% of the market for concerts and 73% of the overall market when sports events are included, showed it had monopoly power, he said.
Marriott countered that Live Nation and Ticketmaster were merely reaping the fruits of decades of hard work that created the best products in the industry.
“We are the biggest entertainment company and ticketer in the country. We’re not hiding from that fact,” he said. “We are big. That is not against the laws in the United States. Success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States.”
Marriott also said the company tries to “outflank and outcompete” its competitors and the jury should not punish the company because the states had shown some communications in which employees who are “fierce competitors” talk about crushing the competition.
He defended the company decision not to immediately fire an employee who acknowledged from the witness stand that he had written a series of messages from late 2021 through early 2023 in which he mocked customers as “so stupid” and said the company was “robbing them blind, baby.”
“People say, sometimes, stupid stuff,” Marriott said, noting the comments were made about the price of lawn chairs and parking. “We don’t condone that. But we also don’t just ax somebody because they made a mistake years in the past.”
Meanwhile, he said, venues and artists are doing better than ever and fans are benefiting from a robust and thriving entertainment industry.
“Our job is to help venues and artists make money. We don’t make excuses for that,” Marriott said.
Washington
Plaintiffs settle with Trump administration, halting cuts to agency that funds U.S. libraries
WASHINGTON (AP) — Plaintiffs challenging the Trump administration’s cost-cutting measures against an agency that funds and promotes libraries across the U.S. said Thursday they settled the case with the Justice Department in a deal that would reverse some of the steps taken.
The American Library Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees said that they had reached an agreement with the Justice Department that will allow the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences to continue awarding grants and operating programs that support libraries and museums.
The White House referred questions to the Justice Department. The Civil Division of the Justice Department, which agreed to the settlement, did not immediately comment.
The two organizations filed a lawsuit last May, spearheaded by the group Democracy Forward, to stop the administration from gutting the IMLS after President Donald Trump signed a March 14 executive order that referred to it and several
other federal agencies as “unnecessary.”
The measures that set in motion were part of a broader attempt by the administration to save money by slashing staff, grants and programs in the federal government.
Staff was subsequently placed on administrative leave with many receiving termination notices. The agency’s then acting director also began canceling grants and contracts and fired the members of the National Museum and Library Services Board.
“When the administration began shuttering IMLS last year, it set off a chain reaction. Libraries across the country started cutting hours, staff and services people rely on – after-school programs, support for job seekers and connection for older adults,” said American Library Association president Sam Helmick in a press statement.
The settlement said all reductions in force to the staff in 2025 have been rescinded and all employees who received them are authorized to return to work. IMLS will not issue any more RIFs in order “to effectuate” the purpose of the executive order, the settlement said.
Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, called the settlement a victory for every community that depends on libraries and museums.
The plaintiffs will file a joint stipulation of dismissal of the case without prejudice in seven days if the government adheres to terms of the agreement.
The settlement announcement comes three days after a federal judge in Rhode Island approved an administration request to withdraw its appeal of a federal district court opinion in a separate lawsuit filed by 21 attorneys general.
IMLS is the only federal agency tasked with providing funding for the nation’s libraries. It was established in 1996 by a Republican-led Congress and has a mission to “advance, support, and empower America’s museums, libraries, and related organizations through grantmaking, research, and policy development.”
The institute combined the services of previous government agencies, including the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science and the Institute of Museum Services.
It distributes thousands of grants nationwide, totaling in recent years to more than $200 million annually.
