Rapper Kid Cudi, real name Scott Mescudi, took the stand during Sean “Diddy” Combs’ federal trial on Thursday to testify for the prosecution.
The 41-year-old Grammy Award winner described an incident involving his Porsche being damaged by an explosive device, which he claimed was orchestrated by Combs as retaliation for Mescudi dating the rapper’s on-again, off-again girlfriend, Cassie Ventura.
During her testimony last week, Ventura said Combs had threatened to blow up Mescudi’s car when he found out the two were romantically involved.
The jury was shown images of Mescudi’s damaged car.
Mescudi said he received a phone call from Ventura in December 2011 during which she sounded &#8220;stressed, nervous, and scared&#8221; about Combs discovering they had been seeing each other. He said later that day, Combs’ former assistant called to inform him that Combs was inside his house.
Mescudi said he headed home and called Combs on the way, asking if he was there. Combs reportedly sounded “calm” when he responded and said he was waiting to talk. When Mescudi arrived home, he said no one was there, but claimed some gifts had been opened and his dog was locked up in a bathroom. Mescudi considered meeting up with Combs, but wound up filing a police report instead.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Later, Mescudi said he interacted with Combs via text. When the rapper said he wanted to “get to the bottom of things,” Mescudi says he replied, &#8220;You broke into my house. You messed with my dog. I don&#8217;t really wanna talk to you.&#8221;
Mescudi said he received a call from his dog sitter in January 2012 informing him that his car was on fire. A Molotov cocktail was later discovered near the vehicle. Though Combs was never connected with the crime, Mescudi says he believes the act of vandalism was done in retaliation for his involvement with Ventura.
Mescudi said he met with Combs the day after the vandalism occurred and described his demeanor as “calm,” which he said was “off-putting.” Mescudi said he asked, “So what are we going to do about my car?” Variety <a href="https://variety.com/2025/music/news/kid-cudi-testifies-diddy-trial-cassie-car-explosion-1236406502/">reported</a>.
Combs replied, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” Mescudi said during his testimony, “He was lying.”
Besides relating details of their personal interactions, Mescudi also corroborated Ventura’s claims of physical abuse, <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/sean-diddy-combs-trial-recap-day-13-2nd/story?id=122096856">saying</a> Combs &#8220;would hit her&#8221; and &#8220;kick her.&#8221; He said they broke up because the &#8220;drama&#8221; was &#8220;getting out of hand,&#8221; and he &#8220;just wanted to give it some space, for my safety and for her safety,&#8221; adding that he knew Combs was “violent.”
Combs pleaded not guilty to charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.

Kid Cudi

Diddy Trial: Rapper Kid Cudi Thinks Combs Orchestrated Molotov Cocktail Attack

Courts

Entertainment

New York City

Sean 'Diddy' Combs

trial

U.S.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump to fire two members of federal labor review boards appointed by former President Joe Biden, whom he said were at odds with his agenda.
In a 6-3 decision, the court said that Trump could terminate Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board after lower courts blocked the firings. The court granted the request from the Trump administration as litigation plays out.
The court wrote that “because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President &#8230; [Trump] may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions.”
&#8220;The stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power. But we do not ultimately decide in this posture whether the NLRB or MSPB falls within such a recognized exception; that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument,&#8221; the court wrote.  
&#8220;The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,&#8221; the conservative wing of the court wrote in their decision. 
The ruling added that the court did not believe that it would pave the way for Trump to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or members of the Federal Open Market Committee.
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson all dissented from the majority decision.
&#8220;Not since the 1950s (or even before) has a President, without a legitimate reason, tried to remove an officer from a classic independent agency—a multi-member, bipartisan commission exercising regulatory power whose governing statute contains a for-cause provision,&#8221; Kagan wrote in her dissent.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
In court filings, Solicitor General John Sauer said that presidents were not mandated to keep federal bureaucrats in power if they did not align with his agenda.
&#8220;The president should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the administration&#8217;s policy objectives for a single day — much less for the months that it would likely take for the courts to resolve this litigation,&#8221; Sauer wrote.
Since his inauguration in January, Trump has pushed to fire broad swaths of federal workers across all levels of the federal government.

President Trump Meets South African President Cyril Ramaphosa At White House

Supreme Court Sides With Trump, Allows Firings Of Agency Heads As Litigation Plays Out

Donald Trump

Joe Biden

Politics

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

A federal judge issued an injunction Thursday blocking the Trump administration from dismantling the Education Department and ordered that fired employees be allowed to come back to work.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Massachusetts ruled that the administration was trying to illegally shut down the department without Congress&#8217;s approval.
“The record abundantly reveals that Defendants’ true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute,” Joun wrote.
“The supporting declarations of former Department employees, educational institutions, unions, and educators paint a stark picture of the irreparable harm that will result from financial uncertainty and delay, impeded access to vital knowledge on which students and educators rely, and loss of essential services for America’s most vulnerable student populations,” the judge wrote.
Joun also said that prior to the mass layoffs, the department was &#8220;already struggling to meet its goals,&#8221; so more reductions would &#8220;likely cripple&#8221; it.
The ruling came after two lawsuits, one filed by a pair of Massachusetts school districts and the American Federation of Teachers union, and the other filed by 21 Democratic attorneys general.
In March, President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-signs-order-dismantling-department-of-education" target="_blank" rel="noopener">signed</a> an executive order dismantling the Department of Education, following through on a key campaign promise to strengthen parental rights and improve academic outcomes across the country.
Trump’s order directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the States and local communities.”
However, the order also told McMahon to “ensure the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”
Also, any programs still receiving Department of Education funds will “terminate illegal discrimination obscured under the label ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ or similar terms and programs promoting gender ideology.”
Frustration with public schools reached a boiling point over the last several years. During the pandemic, parents pleaded with schools to open the classrooms and stop requiring face masks on children. After COVID, parents complained of crippling learning loss, schools hiding children’s gender identity changes, and teachers pushing controversial ideologies like Critical Race Theory.
“Everybody knows it’s right. The Democrats know it’s right,” Trump said just before signing the order. “We’re going to be returning education, very simply, back to the states where it belongs, and this is a very popular thing to do, but much more importantly, it’s a common sense thing to do, and it’s going to work. Absolutely, it’s going to work.”
Trump said the United States has “two stats you don’t want — the most money spent per pupil, and you’re at the bottom of the list, and that’s where we are, like it or not, and we’ve been there for a long time.”

Judge gavel with Justice lawyers, Businessman in suit or lawyer working on a documents. Legal law, advice and justice concept.

Judge Blocks Dismantling Of Education Department, Orders Fired Workers Back

Department of Education

Linda McMahon

A deadlocked Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a decision blocking an Oklahoma Catholic school from participating in the state&#8217;s charter school program.
The 4-4 decision upholds the Oklahoma Supreme Court&#8217;s decision to ban the Oklahoma City-based St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School from being eligible. It was unclear how the justices voted, but Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case.
The case pitted the Catholic school against Oklahoma Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who sued the school after the state&#8217;s charter school board voted to approve St. Isidore&#8217;s participation. Drummond argued that allowing religious schools to take part in the program would force taxpayers to fund schools with religious beliefs they did not support.
&#8220;The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of my position that we should not allow taxpayer funding of radical Islamic schools here in Oklahoma. I am proud to have fought against this potential cancer in our state, and I will continue upholding the law, protecting our Christian values and defending religious liberty,&#8221; Drummond <a href="https://x.com/Okla_OAG/status/1925559733697540373">posted</a> on X after the decision from the court was released.
Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the school and charter board argued that Oklahoma discriminated based on religion.
“Oklahoma parents and children are better off with more educational choices, not fewer,&#8221; ADF chief legal counsel Jim Campbell <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/divided-us-supreme-court-leaves-oklahoma-families-with-fewer-educational-choices/?sourcecode=11036715_r200">said</a>. &#8220;While the Supreme Court’s order is disappointing for educational freedom, the 4-4 decision does not set precedent, allowing the court to revisit this issue in the future. The U.S. Supreme Court has been clear that when the government creates programs and invites groups to participate, it can’t single out religious groups for exclusion, and we will continue our work to protect this vital freedom for parents and students.&#8221;
A win for St. Isidore would have struck down a provision of the Oklahoma Charter School Act that expressly forbids religious charter schools and could open the door for more religious charter schools across the country.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
In previous decisions, such as Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and Carson v. Makin, the Supreme Court sided with religious organizations that had been locked out of state programs based on their religious nature. In Carson, the Supreme Court struck down a ban in Maine on vouchers from going toward religious schools.
During oral arguments, several justices on the court&#8217;s conservative wing appeared to side with St. Isidore while the liberal wing signaled strong opposition.
&#8220;You can’t treat religious people and religious institutions and religious speech as second class in the United States,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-conservatives-signal-support-for-public-religious-charter-schools" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>, adding that excluding religious schools “seems like rank discrimination.”

Supreme Court Takes On Religious Charter School Case

Split Supreme Court Blocks Christian School From Participating In Charter Program

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Oklahoma

Religious Freedom

Religious Schools

The Minnesota Supreme Court decided that women completely exposing their breasts in public is legally acceptable.
The <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minnesota-supreme-court-women-bare-breasts-lewd-ruling/">ruling</a> in the case State of Minnesota v. Plancarte revolved around Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, who had exposed herself in a police officer’s presence by revealing her bare breasts. The state Supreme Court overturned a Court of Appeals decision against Plancarte, who had been arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. Plancarte argued to the court that her breasts were not “private parts” and her actions were not “lewd.” A district court found her actions “legally obscene.”
The state Supreme Court opinion recalled the facts of the case, writing:
<blockquote>
The facts in this case are short and undisputed: On July 28, 2021, the Rochester Police Department received a report that a woman was walking around a gas station parking lot with her breasts exposed. An officer responded to the call and saw Plancarte in the parking lot with her breasts exposed. The officer recognized Plancarte from two encounters earlier that week. During those encounters, the officer saw Plancarte exposing her underwear on one occasion, and her breasts and her underwear on another occasion. The officer stopped Plancarte and asked her why she kept exposing herself. Plancarte replied, “I think Catholic girls do it all the time.” Plancarte then worried about how she would get home and stated, “I dance at the biker club. I’m a stripper.” The officer said, “Well, you can’t strip in the middle of public.” Plancarte responded, “Yeah, but they should account for me at the club, shouldn’t they?” 
</blockquote>
The Minnesota Supreme Court stated:
<blockquote>
Because we conclude that the word “lewdly,” as used in section 617.23, subdivision 1(1), refers to conduct of a sexual nature, and because the record does not show that Plancarte engaged in such conduct, we reverse. 
</blockquote>
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Justice Karl Procaccini stated:
<blockquote>
If the State fails to present evidence sufficient to prove that the exposure was willful, lewd, and in a public place or a place where others are present, then the defendant’s conviction under the statute must be reversed. &#8230; Based on our independent review, we are persuaded that “lewdly” is ambiguous in the context of the indecent exposure statute. At least four common usages of “lewdly” are reasonable under the statute. Several dictionaries define “lewd” (the root of “lewdly”) to mean “obscene,” “indecent,” and “lustful,” as well as “[p]reoccupied with sex and sexual desire.” &#8230; Although “lewdly” in the indecent exposure statute has a broader meaning than “obscene,” defining “lewdly” as “indecently” or “lustfully” threatens to undermine due  process by failing to put the public on notice of the kinds of acts that are prohibited by the statute. 
Although the  police reports establish that Plancarte was charged with indecent exposure three times in one week for exposing some combination of her breasts and underwear, none of these reports provide any insight into the nature of her exposure during those incidents. Moreover, the officer’s body-worn camera footage does not capture Plancarte engaging in any conduct of a sexual nature. Finally, Plancarte’s comment about being “a stripper” and her assertion that “Catholic girls [expose their breasts] all the time” are not evidence that her conduct in this instance was of a sexual nature.
</blockquote>
In a concurring opinion, Justice Sarah Hennesy wrote, “Interpreting ‘private parts’ to include female—and not male—breasts would lead to the continued stigmatization of female breasts as inherently sexual and reinforce the sexual objectification of women. As other courts have recognized, the idea that female breasts are primarily sexual is rooted in stereotypes.”
“Activist judges like these appointed by Governor Walz  are accomplices in Walz’s war on our children,” Julie Quist of the Child Protection League <a href="https://cplaction.com/cpl-article/12489/">wrote</a>, adding:
<blockquote>Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, the ACLU of Minnesota, and the radical gender activists Gender Justice are appellants in the case. They are the same people legalizing gender mutilation on our children, releasing hardened criminals from prison, and making Minnesota a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants. 
By ignoring the relevant part of state law, two judges have outrageously legalized exhibitionism. As this relates to children, allowing women to bare breasts on the beaches, on the streets, and at grocery stores erodes children’s natural sense of modesty that serves as a safe sexual boundary. This ruling is an overt attack on their innocence and their minds, making them far more vulnerable to sexual exploitation.</blockquote>

Topless girl taking bikini bra off at summer house. Slim woman hanging swimsuit

Minnesota Supreme Court Rules Women Can Completely Bare Their Breasts In Public

Minnesota

Nudity

Day eight of Sean “Diddy” Combs’ trial included testimony from his former assistant, George Kaplan, who detailed how he both set up and covered up his employer’s infamous “freak off” parties in hotel rooms.
Kaplan testified that he worked long days, clocking 80 to 100 hours per week and at least once being on shift for close to 24 hours straight, per <a href="https://www.cnn.com/entertainment/live-news/diddy-trial-cassie-court-case-05-21-25">CNN</a>. The former executive assistant reported that he was paid around $125,000 and that Combs threatened his employment frequently, saying he would be let go over mistakes, such as purchasing the wrong item at a store. 
Kaplan said he was tasked with answering phone calls, emails, and texts from Combs, including requests for “clothing or potentially food from somewhere, or drugs or liquor or an iPad or a speaker,” the outlet noted. He was also required to fly to various cities such as New York, Miami, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., and Orlando to deliver a “hotel bag” containing a speaker, candles, liquor, baby oil, extra clothing, and Astroglide lubricant. 
Combs’ former assistant said he also understood his job to include visiting the hotel room after his employer left to clean up evidence of the parties, which might consist of empty bottles of baby oil and lube, and in one instance, drug residue. He testified that this was done to “protect” Combs’ image and ensure hotel cleaning staff could not take pictures and publicize them, as ABC News <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/sean-combs-trial-day-12-recap-jurors-hear/story?id=122050227">reported</a>.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Kaplan confirmed that the “freak offs” lasted several days and included prostitutes, drugs, and alcohol. The assistant claimed Combs asked him to buy illegal drugs on two occasions, including a bag of MDMA in Miami and an unknown substance in Los Angeles. 
Also on day eight of the trial, clinical and forensic psychologist Dawn Hughes testified about the tendency for victims of domestic abuse to stay in abusive relationships. This comes after the prosecution’s star witness, Cassie Ventura, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/diddy-trial-combs-ex-girlfriend-cassie-ventura-shares-graphic-details-of-freak-offs">took the stand</a> to testify against Combs. Ventura and Combs were together for 11 years, and she accused him of physical, mental, and sexual abuse during that time.
Rapper Kid Cudi is expected to testify on Thursday, and Kaplan will face cross-examination from the defense. Combs’ legal team seeks to prove that his unconventional sex life was shocking but not illegal. Meanwhile, he has been charged with sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution.
Combs pleaded not guilty to the charges. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.

George Kaplan

Diddy Trial: Witness Says He Concealed ‘Freak Off’ Party Aftermath From Hotel Staff

Diddy Trial: Former Assistant Testifies About Hiding 'Freak Off' Party Aftermath From Hotel Staff

Sex Crimes

Over two dozen Republican attorneys general are defending President Donald Trump&#8217;s moves to keep women from being housed alongside transgender-identifying men in federal prisons.
Led by Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, a group of 26 states filed an amicus brief on Friday in support of Trump&#8217;s executive order requiring prisoners to be housed by sex and halting funds for transgender procedures for prisoners. Trump&#8217;s actions to rid prisons of gender ideology currently sit before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after being blocked by lower federal courts.
“Truth matters — and it’s under attack in our culture today,” Labrador told The Daily Wire on Wednesday. “We’re standing up for biological reality, lawful executive authority, and the dignity and safety of women. If government policy or court rulings deny basic truth, it threatens both public trust and the rights of individuals.”
In February, a federal judge blocked the Trump&#8217;s directive to move transgender-identifying male prisoners out of a female prison, arguing that it violates the Eight Amendment&#8217;s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Two other judges have also blocked the order, including provisions ending funding of transgender procedures for prisoners.
Led by Labrador and Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, the Republican attorneys general argued Friday that Trump&#8217;s actions to keep men out of women&#8217;s prisons are not bound by the Eighth Amendment.
&#8220;The federal government is charged with preserving the safety of all prisoners in its care, and it has determined that placing transgender-identifying male prisoners in female housing intolerably jeopardizes female prisoners’ well-being,&#8221; they wrote in their legal brief. &#8220;So far as the Eighth Amendment is concerned,  the federal government is free to decide, as it has, that the best and safest solution is to house trans-identifying male prisoners with non-violent male offenders.&#8221;
The Republican officials also noted that there is a great danger that could be posed to women who are forced to shower and bunk alongside males.
&#8220;Housing transgender-identifying males with female prisoners presents its own set of risks. Those risks inure to the harm of female inmates, who  (1) have their rights to privacy and dignity compromised by having to sleep and shower with men, (2) are exposed to elevated possibilities of violence or sexual assault, and (3) will be pressured or coerced into using speech reflecting a belief that conflicts with  biological reality,&#8221; they wrote. 
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-trump-youth-prisons-transgender-house-young-girls?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Despite+Trump+Orders%2C+Juvenile+Prisons+Still+Have+To+House+‘Trans’+Men+With+Young+Girls" target="_blank" rel="noopener">RELATED: Despite Trump Orders, Juvenile Prisons Still Have To House ‘Trans’ Men With Young Girls</a>
They also argue that the Trump administration should be allowed to deny transgender procedures to prisoners because of the well-documented risks of gender medical interventions.
&#8220;Politically accountable policy makers are better positioned and constitutionally  empowered to decide if, when, and how those treatments should be administered, and the need for deference to the politically accountable branches is particularly high in light  of the medical uncertainty regarding the treatments’ efficacy,&#8221; they wrote. 
<div id="attachment_923535" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-923535" class="size-full wp-image-923535" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2149418788.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 24: Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador speaks outside the Supreme Court on April 24, 2024 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court hears oral arguments today on Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States to decide if Idaho emergency rooms can provide abortions to pregnant women during an emergency using a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act to supersede a state law that criminalizes most abortions in Idaho." width="1024" height="683" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2149418788.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2149418788-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2149418788-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2149418788-768x512.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Labrador at the Supreme Court/ Credit: Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images.</div>
The brief was signed by the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming.
Risks to women being housed alongside males are not abstract and are currently the subject of multiple lawsuits across the country. A California man named Tremaine Carrol faces multiple rape charges after he was housed in a woman&#8217;s facility. In Washington, former prisoner Mozzy Clark has sued the state saying it subjected her to multiple sexual assaults because they housed a man in her cell.
The issue is not isolated to the adult prisons as Obama-era regulations states could be required to house boys in all-girl youth prisons as well. As The Daily Wire previously reported, states must consider housing a juvenile male who identifies as a female at a women&#8217;s facility on a case by case basis or risk the loss of federal funding.

Criminal wearing handcuffs in prison

Republican AGs Blast Federal Judges For Keeping Men In Women’s Prisons

gender ideology

Idaho

Prison

Transgender

On Wednesday, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division said lawsuits against the Louisville, Kentucky, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, police departments would be dismissed.
The DOJ countered the lawsuits filed by the Biden administration in the waning moments of Biden’s presidency.
Those lawsuits accused the police departments of &#8220;unconstitutional policing practices by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination and heavily relying on flawed methodologies and incomplete data,” the DOJ <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-department-justices-civil-rights-division-dismisses-biden-era-police-investigations-and" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stated</a>. “They also sought to subject the Louisville and Minneapolis police departments to sweeping consent decrees that went far beyond the Biden administration’s accusations of unconstitutional conduct.”
The Minneapolis and Louisville investigations followed the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor in 2020.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday">Memorial Day Sale &#8211; Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
In April 2021, then-Attorney General Merrick B. Garland <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/21/us/politics/justice-department-minneapolis-police.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> an investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department and whether it had used excessive force or treated minorities unfairly. In 2023, Biden’s DOJ <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3889776-doj-issues-scathing-civil-rights-report-on-louisville-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">released</a> results of its investigation into the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD), saying it had acted with discriminatory behavior against black people. Both police departments reached consent decrees with the Biden administration.
The consent decree with Minneapolis <a href="https://mn.gov/mdhr/mpd/agreement/terms.jsp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">enjoined</a> the police department to:
<ul style="font-weight: 400;">
<li>Require officers to de-escalate</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-weight: 400;">
<li>Prohibit officers from using force to punish or retaliate</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-weight: 400;">
<li>Prohibit the use of certain pretext stops</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-weight: 400;">
<li>Ban searches based on alleged smells of cannabis</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-weight: 400;">
<li>Prohibit so-called consent searches during pedestrian or vehicle stops</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-weight: 400;">
<li>Limit when officers can use force</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-weight: 400;">
<li>Limit when and how officers can use chemical irritants and tasers</li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-weight: 400;">
<li>Ban “excited delirium” training</li>
</ul>
The consent decree’s demands of the Louisville police are listed <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-agreement-louisville-metro-government-reform-louisville-metros">here</a>.
“The decrees would have governed many aspects of those police departments, including their management, supervision, training, performance evaluations, discipline, staffing, recruitment, and hiring,” the DOJ continued. “In short, these sweeping consent decrees would have imposed years of micromanagement of local police departments by federal courts and expensive independent monitors, and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of compliance costs, without a legally or factually adequate basis for doing so.”
“Overbroad police consent decrees divest local control of policing from communities where it belongs, turning that power over to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, often with an anti-police agenda,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department&#8217;s Civil Rights Division declared. “Today, we are ending the Biden Civil Rights Division’s failed experiment of handcuffing local leaders and police departments with factually unjustified consent decrees.”
In addition, the Civil Rights Division “will also be closing its investigations into, and retracting the Biden administration’s findings of constitutional violations” on the part of the police departments of Phoenix, Arizona; Trenton, New Jersey; Memphis, Tennessee; Mount Vernon, New York; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and the Louisiana State Police.

Donald Trump And Jeff Sessions Attend 36th annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service

Trump’s DOJ Goes To Bat For Police: Will Dismiss Biden’s Lawsuits Against Them

Department of Justice

Louisville

Minneapolis

Police

The Department of Justice is reportedly set to settle a lawsuit brought by the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was killed on January 6, 2021, in the U.S. Capitol, for $5 million.
Babbitt’s family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the federal government last year, seeking $30 million. The Justice Department previously opposed the suit and planned to argue against it in a trial scheduled for July 2026.
Attorneys for the Justice Department and for Babbitt’s family said at a May 2 hearing that they had agreed to a settlement to end the case, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/05/19/ashli-babbitt-lawsuit-settlement/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Washington Post</a>. No deal was filed, and U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes ordered the parties to update the court about the agreement this coming Thursday, May 22.
The settlement is reportedly an agreement by the Trump administration to pay Babbitt’s family $5 million. Babbitt was fatally shot by a police officer on January 6 after entering the U.S. Capitol.
The Babbitt family is being represented in the case by Judicial Watch, whose president, Tom Fitton, declined to comment on the settlement in a post on X.
“[Judicial Watch] can&#8217;t yet comment on the Ashli Babbitt settlement amount that is being reported because the settlement still hasn&#8217;t been finalized. But I can say, contrary to initial WPOST report, [Judicial Watch] is not getting a third (or any portion) of any settlement. We are representing Ashil&#8217;s family pro bono!” Fitton posted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/JudicialWatch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JudicialWatch</a> can&#39;t yet comment on the Ashli Babbitt settlement amount that is being reported because the settlement still hasn&#39;t been finalized. But I can say, contrary to initial WPOST report, <a href="https://twitter.com/JudicialWatch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JudicialWatch</a> is not getting a third (or any portion) of any settlement. We are… <a href="https://t.co/Cn35tbXd5H">https://t.co/Cn35tbXd5H</a>
&mdash; Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) <a href="https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1924552757270167958?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 19, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia conducted an investigation into Babbitt&#8217;s death, and released its findings in April 2021. Investigators concluded that the police officer who shot Babbitt did not violate federal laws “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber,” the U.S. attorney’s office <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.
President Donald Trump has taken a more sympathetic view of those involved in January 6. On his first day in office, Trump <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/granting-pardons-and-commutation-of-sentences-for-certain-offenses-relating-to-the-events-at-or-near-the-united-states-capitol-on-january-6-2021/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">issued</a> a sweeping clemency order for all of the nearly 1,600 people charged in connection with the Capitol riot. Most received full pardons while over a dozen others had their sentences commuted. Those who had not yet been tried had their cases dropped.

January 6th Solidarity Rally

Trump Admin Reportedly Reaches Settlement With Family Of Ashli Babbitt

Ashli Babbitt

Capitol Riot

January 6

Judicial Watch

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Monday that the Trump administration can remove Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for around 350,000 Venezuelan migrants who were allowed to remain in the United States under the Biden administration.
In an unsigned order that included no opinions, the Supreme Court gave the Trump administration the green light to end TPS for Venezuelan migrants pending an appeal of the case, likely paving the way for the administration to ramp up deportations, The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/us/politics/supreme-court-protected-status-venezuelans.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee, was the only justice to say she would have denied the Trump administration&#8217;s request.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem kicked off the controversy over protected status for Venezuelan migrants in February when she terminated an 18-month extension of TPS for the migrants granted by Biden just before he left office. The extension would allow the Venezuelan migrants to remain in the United States and seek work authorization until October 2026.
After a lawsuit was brought against the Trump administration, Judge Edward M. Chen of the Federal District Court in San Francisco blocked Noem&#8217;s move to end TPS, saying that plaintiffs would have likely succeeded in showing that the secretary&#8217;s decision was “unauthorized by law, arbitrary and capricious, and motivated by unconstitutional animus.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then rejected Trump&#8217;s request to pause the district court&#8217;s ruling before the case ended up in the Supreme Court.
In Solicitor General John Sauer&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-admin-asks-supreme-court-to-revoke-legal-protections-for-350k-venezuelans?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+Admin+Asks+Supreme+Court+To+Revoke+Legal+Protections+For+350K+Venezuelans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">appeal</a> to the Supreme Court, he wrote, “The Secretary’s decision whether to designate, extend, or terminate TPS implicates sensitive judgments as to foreign policy and, in this case, the ‘national interest’—a discretionary determination that Congress expressly committed to her judgment.”
Monday&#8217;s order from the high court is welcome news for Trump after justices ruled against the president 7-2 last Friday, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-trump-administration-venezuelans-alien-enemies-act-rcna202094" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ordering</a> the administration to pause deportations of suspected Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador. In that case, the majority ruled that the Trump administration must give detainees more time to raise legal objections. Only conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. Trump blasted Friday&#8217;s decision, <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114519567610751944" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying</a>, &#8220;The Supreme Court won&#8217;t allow us to get criminals out of our country!&#8221;

ICE agent

SCOTUS Allows Trump To End Temporary Protected Status For Certain Migrants

Illegal Immigration

Migrants

Trump Administration

Venezuela

A liberal billionaire with a long history of funding left-wing organizations has been accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a former employee, according to a new lawsuit.
Hansjorg Wyss, the 89-year-old Swiss billionaire who has dumped heaps of cash behind liberal organizations in the United States, stands <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/wine/article/hansjorg-wyss-halter-ranch-lawsuit-20327267.php">accused</a> of harassing a former employee of a winery in Paso Robles, California, that he owns.
Madison Busby, a former project manager at Halter Ranch Winery, alleges that Wyss groped her, exposed himself to her, and told her stories about his sexual activities, including “his many sexual affairs outside his marriage.” The lawsuit goes on to claim that Wyss, who critics say <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bill-aims-to-close-loopholes-to-ensure-u-s-elections-are-free-from-foreign-influence">supplied</a> a left-wing dark money organization with hundreds of millions of dollars and poured <a href="https://freebeacon.com/issues/memo-reveals-100-million-effort-by-clinton-foundation-donor/">another $100 million</a> into an effort to bolster the Democrat Party&#8217;s electoral chances, even suggested that Busby and her husband engage in group sex with him and another woman.
Then, Busby says, the leftist billionaire retaliated against her after she rejected his sexual advances. Busby’s lawyer says that Wyss’ harassment of his client caused her emotional distress and financial damage in the form of lost wages.
“Madison has suffered severe emotional distress from the harassment which took place over the course of many years, and also from lost wages and then future damages,” Busby’s attorney John Ly said. “She’s been harmed immensely.” The complaint alleges that Wyss even admitted to Busby in 2022 that “if you ever went after me for sexual harassment, you would win.”
Halter Ranch denies the claims of the lawsuit against its owner. “The allegations in the complaint are not true and we intend to vigorously advance the facts that surround their time at the winery and their departure,” the winery said in response to the complaint.
Busby and her husband Bryce Mullins lived in a house on the Halter Ranch property, the complaint says, adding that Wyss would stay at the house with them when he was in town. But when the couple got married and had a baby, they moved into a smaller house on the property that wasn’t large enough for Wyss to stay with them on his trips. Then Wyss charged the couple $1,650 a month in rent instead of the usual $300 per month, the lawsuit says.
Then when Busby voluntarily resigned and filed her complaint against Wyss, Mullins’ employment at Halter Ranch was allegedly terminated.
Mullins filed a claim of his own, alleging that Wyss failed to honor an agreement that would have provided Mullins with equity in Halter Ranch that eventually would have been worth $30 million.

Hansjorg Wyss with Bloomberg

Left-Wing Mega-Donor Accused Of Sexually Harassing Employee

Billionaire

California

Crime

Donors

Lawsuit

The Justice Department on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to rein in federal district court judges by restricting their ability to issue nationwide injunctions.
Solicitor General John Sauer asked the court to limit the scope of federal judges&#8217; ability to issue nationwide injunctions, saying the courts have overstepped the authority given to them in Article III of the Constitution. The case stems from three universal injunctions that were placed on an executive order from President Donald Trump directing his administration not to grant birthright citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants residing in the United States.
“It is a feature, not a bug of Article III, that courts grant relief to the people who sue in front of them,” Sauer said as he took questions from the justices. “So the notion that relief has to be given to the whole world because others who have not taken the time to sue are not before the courts is something that results in all of these problems.”
Sauer said that universal injunctions lead to “rampant forum shopping,” “require judges to make rushed, high-stakes low information decisions,” and “force government to win everywhere,” while those challenging the government only need to win at one court.  
In a press call on Tuesday, a Justice Department official noted that 35 of the 39 total universal injunctions issued against the Trump administration have come from the same five courts: the districts of Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, D.C., Northern California, and Western Washington.
Justices largely focused on procedural questions and only touched lightly on whether Trump&#8217;s executive order on birthright citizenship was legal. The liberal wing of the court, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, kept asserting that Trump&#8217;s actions to restrict birthright citizenship were unconstitutional.
Sotomayor also took issue with Sauer&#8217;s arguments that injunctions should only apply to the parties that specifically sued. She claimed that a president could hypothetically ban all guns, and each gun owner would then need to seek individual relief if the court were to take the Justice Department&#8217;s position.
On the other side, Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the most conservative members of the court, appeared very skeptical of universal injunctions in his questions.
“So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?” Thomas asked Sauer. 
“That’s exactly correct,&#8221; the solicitor general replied. 
Justice Brett Kavanaugh also pushed Sauer to discuss how Trump&#8217;s executive order on birthright citizenship would be carried out. Sauer replied that the administration never got the opportunity to develop its framework because it was blocked just days after the order was issued.
Trump weighed in on the case from the Middle East, posting on Truth Social that birthright citizenship was meant for slaves, and not for &#8220;people pouring into our Country from all over South America, and the rest of the World.&#8221;
&#8220;Big case today in the United States Supreme Court. Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the &#8216;SUCKERS&#8217; that we are! The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows — But the drug cartels love it,&#8221; Trump wrote.

US-POLITICS-JUSTICE-TRUMP-CITIZENSHIP-PROTEST

Supreme Court To Consider Taking Action Against Judges Blocking Trump Agenda

birthright citizenship

Menu