Jurors are outraged after a Minnesota judge overturned the conviction of 45-year-old Abdifatah Yusuf for stealing $7.2 million through a fraudulent health care company.
Yusuf was <a href="https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2025/08/12_Yusuf.asp">convicted</a> in August of defrauding the state’s Medicaid program after investigators said that he ran a health care company without an office building, operated out of a mailbox. On Thursday, Minneapolis Judge Sarah West acquitted Yusuf, arguing that the prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence.
According to <a href="https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2024/docs/YusufAbdifatah_Complaint.pdf">prosecutors</a>, Yusuf operated an agency called Promise Health Services that perpetrated &#8220;fraudulent documentation, over-billed claims, recipients denying they received services, and recipients receiving unlawful kickbacks.&#8221; Prosecutors said that Yusuf used Promise to fund a lavish lifestyle that included spending $22,000 on furniture, $80,000 on luxury clothing, and $42,000 on cars. He was found guilty of six counts of aiding and abetting theft by swindle (over $35,000).
After news of the acquittal broke, jurors spoke out, saying that the evidence in the case was clear.
&#8220;It was not a difficult decision whatsoever. The deliberation took probably four hours at most. Based off of the state&#8217;s evidence that was presented, it was beyond a reasonable doubt,&#8221; jury foreperson Ben Walfoort <a href="https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/courts-news/hennepin-county-judge-tosses-out-jurys-guilty-verdict-in-72-million-home-healthcare-fraud-case/89-cbbdfb26-eb5d-40cc-8a19-a17c8602c8bf">told</a> local NBC affiliate KARE 11. “I am shocked. I&#8217;m shocked based off of all of the evidence that was presented to us and the obvious guilt that we saw based off of the said evidence.&#8221;
Another juror echoed the sentiment.
&#8220;We didn&#8217;t take our job lightly,” a juror told KARE 11. “We went through a lot of evidence and discussed a lot, took our time, but we all came to an agreement pretty easily.&#8221;
In a 55-page order, West acknowledged that there was widespread fraud at Promise, but said the state failed to establish a link between Yusuf and the fraud.
“The State’s Case was based substantially on circumstantial evidence. The State details evidence of fraud at Promise, some of which was direct evidence,” she wrote. “However, nearly all purported evidence of Mr. Yusuf’s alleged involvement in the fraud or from which the jury must have made inferences of the same is circumstantial.”
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" data-sk="tooltip_parent">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.
West, who was appointed to Minnesota’s Fourth Judicial court by Democrat Governor Mark Dayton, said that she was &#8220;troubled by the manner in which fraud was able to be perpetuated at Promise Health.&#8221;
Prosecutors have appealed West’s decision, asking for a reexamination of the evidence and the judge’s decision.
Ian Birrell, Yusuf’s lawyer, said that the ruling proved his innocence.
&#8220;Judge West’s 55-page order meticulously considered the facts and faithfully applied the law. It affirms what we have maintained from the very beginning: that Abdifatah Yusuf did not commit fraud or racketeering,&#8221; he told The Daily Wire. &#8220;The Court’s Order affirms the fundamental principle that justice requires both fairness and proof. We appreciate the Court&#8217;s thorough consideration of all the proceedings and we are confident Mr. Yusuf’s innocence will be affirmed through the appeal process.&#8221;

MixCollage-25-Nov-2025-12-56-PM-814

Jurors ‘Shocked’ After Minneapolis Judge Throws Out $7.2 Million Fraud Conviction

Courts

Fraud

Judge

Minneapolis

Minnesota

U.S.

A former employee has filed a lawsuit against Campbell’s, alleging that he was wrongfully terminated after lodging a complaint against an executive.
Robert Garza, a Michigan-based cybersecurity expert who worked remotely for the company, filed a lawsuit against his former employer this week. Garza claimed that he was fired in January, just three weeks after filing the complaint.
The tech worker said he recorded an in-person meeting with chief information security officer Martin Bally while the two were meant to be discussing a salary increase last year. Garza said he captured an hour-long tirade, which included derogatory comments about the product and various nationalities.
“We have sh*t for f*cking poor people. Who buys our sh*t? I don’t buy Campbell’s products barely anymore,” Bally allegedly said at one point during the 75-minute-long recording.
The exec also allegedly claimed the ingredients were man-made. “It’s not healthy now that I know what the f*ck’s in it,” a person on the recording says. “Bioengineered meat — I don’t wanna eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3-D printer.”
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.
Bally is also accused of disparaging employees from India. “F*cking Indians don’t know a f*cking thing,” a speaker on the recording said. “They couldn’t think for their f*cking selves.”
Campbell’s has not confirmed the authenticity of the recording, but has released a statement refuting the claims. The company also said Bally has been placed on leave.
“If the comments heard on the audio recording were in fact made by Mr. Bally, they are unacceptable. Such language does not reflect our values and the culture of our company. We do not tolerate that kind of language under any circumstances. Mr. Bally is temporarily on leave while we conduct an investigation,” the company said in a <a href="https://www.thecampbellscompany.com/newsroom/news/company-statement-on-the-garza-lawsuit-and-alleged-audio-recording/">statement</a>. “We are proud of the food we make, the people who make it and the high-quality ingredients we use. The comments heard on the recording about our food are not only inaccurate — they are patently absurd.”
The Daily Wire reached out to Campbell’s for additional comment.
Garza claims he reported the incident to his manager but was terminated 20 days later. He said he didn’t come forward before now because he was taking time to process what happened.

Campbells Soup

Campbell’s Soup Exec Accused Of Calling Product ‘Sh*t For Poor People’

Business

Fired

Food

groceries

Lawsuit

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi warned former FBI Director James Comey and New York AG Letitia James on Monday that the Department of Justice is not done with them, promising an appeal after a federal judge dismissed charges against the pair.
&#8220;We’ll be taking all available legal action, including an immediate appeal, to hold Letitia James and James Comey accountable for their unlawful conduct,&#8221; Bondi told the press on Monday, Fox News reported.
&#8220;I’m not worried about someone who has been charged with a very serious crime,&#8221; she said specifically of Comey. &#8220;His alleged actions were a betrayal of public trust.&#8221;
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed charges without prejudice against both Comey and James on procedural grounds, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-judge-tosses-charges-against-james-comey-letitia-james?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Tim+Pearce&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=3&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=Federal+Judge+Tosses+Charges+Against+James+Comey%2C+Letitia+James">The Daily Wire</a> reported Monday. Currie said Lindsey Halligan, the Trump-appointed prosecutor who secured their indictments, was unlawfully serving as interim U.S. attorney.
President Donald Trump appointed Halligan to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, replacing former U.S. attorney Erik Siebert. Siebert resigned from the position after leading investigations into Comey and James, but stopping short of filing charges. Halligan was previously a member of Trump’s legal team.
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.
&#8220;We have made Lindsey Halligan a special U.S. attorney so she is in court, she can fight in court just like she was, and we believe we will be successful on appeal,&#8221; Bondi said.
&#8220;And I&#8217;ll tell you, Lindsey Halligan, I talked to all of our U.S. attorneys, the majority of them around the country, and Lindsey Halligan is an excellent U.S. attorney,&#8221; she added. &#8220;And shame on them for not wanting her in office.&#8221;
The Justice Department <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/comey-indicted-for-lying-to-congress-no-one-is-above-the-law">indicted</a> Comey in September on charges of giving false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. The charges stemmed from testimony Comey delivered to Congress in 2020 on his handling of the FBI investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
The department <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/letitia-james-indicted-following-doj-probe-into-2023-sweetheart-home-loan">brought</a> charges against James in October, over a loan she received in 2023 to secure a mortgage on a house in Virginia. James allegedly claimed the Virginia home as her primary residence while working as New York’s attorney general, a position which requires James to live in the state of New York. James secured more favorable terms on the mortgage, while the home was occupied by a relative of James instead.
James made a name for herself by leading a civil fraud case against Trump. The case was widely viewed as highly controversial and unprecedented legal warfare, especially since James expressly campaigned on “leading the resistance” to “take on” Trump.
Tim Pearce contributed to this report.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-judge-tosses-charges-against-james-comey-letitia-james?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Tim+Pearce&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=3&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=Federal+Judge+Tosses+Charges+Against+James+Comey%2C+Letitia+James">Federal Judge Tosses Charges Against James Comey, Letitia James</a>

Pam Bondi

Not So Fast: Pam Bondi Has Message For James Comey And Letitia James

Not so Fast: AG Pam Bondi Has Message For James Comey And Letitia James

Department of Justice

James Comey

Letitia James

A federal judge on Monday dismissed charges against former FBI head James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the charges against both Comey and James after finding that Lindsey Halligan, the Trump-appointed prosecutor who secured their indictments, was unlawfully serving as interim U.S. attorney.
“I agree with Mr. Comey that the attorney general’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid. And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice,” Currie wrote in an order dismissing the case against the former FBI head, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/24/nyregion/james-comey-case-dismissed.html">The New York Times</a>.
The judge dismissed the charges against James in a similar order. The pair of rulings is a setback for President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice, which has brought several high-profile cases against top Trump antagonists.
Prosecutors could attempt to refile the charges against Comey and James, or the department could appeal the judge&#8217;s rulings.
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.
Trump appointed Halligan, previously a member of Trump’s legal team, to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, replacing former U.S. attorney Erik Siebert. Siebert resigned from the position after leading investigations into Comey and James, but stopping short of filing charges.
The Justice Department <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/comey-indicted-for-lying-to-congress-no-one-is-above-the-law">indicted</a> Comey in September on charges of ​​giving false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. The charges stemmed from testimony Comey delivered to Congress in 2020 on his handling of the FBI investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
The department <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/letitia-james-indicted-following-doj-probe-into-2023-sweetheart-home-loan">brought</a> charges against James in October over a loan she received in 2023 to secure a mortgage on a house in Virginia. James allegedly claimed the Virginia home as her primary residence while working as New York’s attorney general, a position which requires James to live in the state of New York. James secured more favorable terms on the mortgage, while the home was occupied by a relative of James instead.
Comey and James denied the charges against them.
Trump has openly disdained Comey and James, while denying accusations that he directed the Justice Department to file charges against either.
“You don’t have to instruct them because they were so dirty, they were so crooked, they were so corrupt that the honest people we have … go after them automatically,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-says-bolton-comey-james-were-so-dirty-doj-had-no-choice-but-to-prosecute">said</a> Trump earlier this month.

James Comey, Letitia James

Federal Judge Tosses Charges Against James Comey, Letitia James

Donald Trump

Meta shut down internal research into the mental health effects of Facebook and Instagram after finding causal evidence that its products harmed users’ mental health, according to unredacted filings in a class action by U.S. school districts against Meta and other social media platforms.
In a 2020 research project code-named “Project Mercury,” Meta scientists worked with survey firm Nielsen to gauge the effect of “deactivating” Facebook and Instagram, according to Meta documents obtained via discovery. To the company’s disappointment, “people who stopped using Facebook for a week reported lower feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness and social comparison,” internal documents said.
Rather than publishing those findings or pursuing additional research, the filing states, Meta called off further work and internally declared that the negative study findings were tainted by the “existing media narrative” around the company.
Privately, however, staff assured Nick Clegg, Meta’s then-head of global public policy, that the conclusions of the research were valid.
“The Nielsen study does show causal impact on social comparison,” (unhappy face emoji), an unnamed staff researcher allegedly wrote. Another staffer worried that keeping quiet about negative findings would be akin to the tobacco industry “doing research and knowing cigs were bad and then keeping that info to themselves.”
Despite Meta’s own work documenting a causal link between its products and negative mental health effects, the filing alleges, Meta told Congress that it had no ability to quantify whether its products were harmful to teenage girls.
In a statement Saturday, Meta spokesman Andy Stone said the study was stopped because its methodology was flawed and that it worked diligently to improve the safety of its products.
“The full record will show that for over a decade, we have listened to parents, researched issues that matter most, and made real changes to protect teens,” he said.
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" data-sk="tooltip_parent">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.
The allegation of Meta burying evidence of social media harms is just one of many in a late Friday filing by Motley Rice, a law firm suing Meta, Google, TikTok and Snapchat on behalf of school districts around the country. Broadly, the plaintiffs argue the companies have intentionally hidden the internally recognized risks of their products from users, parents and teachers.
TikTok, Google and Snapchat did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Allegations against Meta and its rivals include tacitly encouraging children below the age of 13 to use their platforms, failing to address child sexual abuse content and seeking to expand the use of social media products by teenagers while they were at school. The plaintiffs also allege that the platforms attempted to pay child-focused organizations to defend the safety of their products in public.
In one instance, TikTok sponsored the National PTA and then internally boasted about its ability to influence the child-focused organization. Per the filing, TikTok officials said the PTA would “do whatever we want going forward in the fall… (t)hey’ll announce things publicly(,), (t)heir CEO will do press statements for us.”
By and large, however, the allegations against the other social media platforms are less detailed than those against Meta. The internal documents cited by the plaintiffs allege:
1. Meta intentionally designed its youth safety features to be ineffective and rarely used, and blocked testing of safety features that it feared might be harmful to growth. 2. Meta required users to be caught 17 times attempting to traffic people for sex before it would remove them from its platform, which a document described as “a very, very, very high strike threshold.&#8221; 3. Meta recognized that optimizing its products to increase teen engagement resulted in serving them more harmful content, but did so anyway. 4. Meta stalled internal efforts to prevent child predators from contacting minors for years due to growth concerns, and pressured safety staff to circulate arguments justifying its decision not to act. 5. In a text message in 2021, Mark Zuckerberg said that he wouldn’t say that child safety was his top concern “when I have a number of other areas I’m more focused on like building the metaverse.” Zuckerberg also shot down or ignored requests by Clegg to better fund child safety work.
Meta’s Stone disputed these allegations, saying the company’s teen safety measures are effective and that the company’s current policy is to remove accounts as soon as they are flagged for sex trafficking.
He said the suit misrepresents its efforts to build safety features for teens and parents, and called its safety work “broadly effective.”
&#8220;We strongly disagree with these allegations, which rely on cherry-picked quotes and misinformed opinions,” Stone said.
The underlying Meta documents cited in the filing are not public, and Meta is opposing their unsealing.
A hearing regarding the filing is set for January 26 in Northern California District Court.
(Reporting by Jeff Horwitz in San Francisco; Editing by Nick Zieminski)

FILE PHOTO: Illustration shows Meta logo

Meta Buried ‘Causal’ Evidence Of Social Media Harm, U.S. Court Filings Allege

Social Media

TikTok

A Tennessee judge blocked the deployment of the National Guard to Memphis, siding with Democrats who claimed that the action was not making the crime-ridden city safer. 
Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal granted a temporary injunction on Monday against Republican Governor Bill Lee’s deployment of National Guard troops to aid federal law enforcement operations in Memphis. Moskal said that Lee lacked the authority to send in the troops and that they were not assisting in the crackdown on violent crime. 
“The Court finds that the first factor — whether the Tennessee Constitution has committed the issue of when to use the National Guard to the Governor—is not met,” Moskal <a href="https://www.wkrn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/73/2025/11/memphis-order.pdf">wrote</a> in her decision. “The power committed to the Governor as commander-in-chief of the Army and Militia is not unfettered.”
A coalition of Memphis-area Democrats, including Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris, filed a lawsuit against Lee and Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti on October 17 after the Trump administration announced a “Memphis Safe Taskforce” involving a surge of federal personnel to the city.
As part of this federal-state partnership, Lee deployed nearly 200 National Guard members to Memphis with the stated goal of supporting federal operations and deterring crime. More than 30 federal entities are currently involved in the operation, which has led to over 2,790 arrests, 453 illegal firearms seized, and more than 300 gang members arrested. 
Over the last few years, Memphis has consistently ranked as one of the nation&#8217;s most dangerous cities, with <a href="https://www.wsmv.com/2025/09/05/this-tennessee-city-has-highest-violent-crime-rate-country-see-where-your-home-ranks/">one analysis</a> showing that it had the highest rate of violent crime in 2024. 
In court, Memphis officials argued that “the deployment is causing immediate and irreparable harm to the County by the increased number of arrests, over burdening the criminal justice system, and overcrowding jail facilities,” Moskal wrote in her decision. 
“The residents of Memphis also have a strong public interest in not being subjected to domestic military occupation for law enforcement purposes under circumstances where it is not statutorily authorized,” Moskal wrote. 
Tennessee will have five days to appeal the decision before the ruling takes effect. 
A poll released earlier this month by the Beacon Center <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/most-tennesseans-support-trumps-national-guard-deployment-to-memphis?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=31&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Most+Tennesseans+Support+Trump%E2%80%99s+National+Guard+Deployment+To+Memphis">found</a> that the majority of Tennesseans approve of sending the National Guard to Memphis. The poll of registered voters found that 63% approved of the deployment while 33% disapproved.

Washington, DC Residents Rally Against Federal Takeover Of City By Trump Administration

Judge Sides With Memphis Dems, Rejects National Guard Deployment Amid Crime Surge

Memphis

National Guard

Politics

Tennessee

The Justice Department sued California on Monday to block the implementation of two bills signed by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom that would regulate the actions of federal agents carrying out immigration enforcement operations in the state.
The laws, both signed by Newsom on September 20, block Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from wearing masks or concealing their faces while on the job and require them to visibly display identification of their agency. The suit, filed in the Central District of California, argues that the laws violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and endanger federal agents. 
“The No Secret Police Act and No Vigilantes Act directly regulate the Federal Government by dictating permissible uniforms for federal agents and forcing federal agencies to adopt specified policies,&#8221; the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1418431/dl?inline=&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=govdelivery">suit</a> said. &#8220;But the Federal Government, not California, has authority to control its own agents and activities.”
Named in the suit are Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, another Democrat. 
The suit argues that the laws would “recklessly endanger the lives of federal agents and their family members and compromise the operational effectiveness of federal law enforcement activities.”
The Department of Homeland Security has said that ICE officers have faced a 1000% increase in assaults this year and has pointed to efforts to dox and threaten the families of ICE agents. In September, three women were <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/federal-grand-jury-charges-three-women-following-ice-agent-home-work-and-livestreaming">charged</a> after they were accused of following an ICE agent to his home before posting his home address to Instagram. 
The Justice Department said that the federal government did not intend to comply with the laws, both of which take effect on January 1. 
The department argued that the laws would “thwart” the use of plainclothes surveillance.
“Because suspects who recognize officers may take preemptive actions to evade apprehension and obstruct enforcement efforts, masking is critical for maintaining operational effectiveness, especially in areas where repeat offenders or organized criminal networks are prevalent,” the suit argued. 
Bonta said he was reviewing the Justice Department&#8217;s complaint. 
“It’s problematic when Californians can’t tell the difference between a law enforcement officer who is charged with protecting them and a criminal who is attempting to cause them harm,&#8221; Bonta&#8217;s office said in a statement. “The FBI itself has warned that the practice of ICE agents obscuring their identity has led to a rise in copycats committing crimes, threatening public safety and eroding trust in law enforcement.”

ICE Raid At Southern California Farm Sparks Protests

Trump Admin Sues To Block California Laws That ‘Recklessly Endanger’ Lives Of Federal Agents

California

Gavin Newsom

Illegal Immigation

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

The Supreme Court on Monday <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111725zor_f2bh.pdf">agreed</a> to hear a case challenging a major Ninth Circuit ruling on the government’s former “metering” policy — a system that limited how many asylum seekers could be processed each day at southern border ports of entry. By taking the case, the Court will now consider the government’s argument that the Ninth Circuit’s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5/364238/20250701145005805_Al_Otro_Lado_Petition.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com">decision</a> has already made it much harder for the Executive Branch to manage the southern border and will continue to do so.
The dispute centers on how federal law defines when a noncitizen “arrives in the United States” for purposes of applying for asylum. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1), any noncitizen “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States … whether or not at a designated port of arrival” may apply for asylum, and § 1225(a)(1) requires inspection of such individuals. From 2016 to 2018, however, the Department of Homeland Security <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-on-border-crossings/">implemented</a> and formalized a “metering” system. During periods of heavy migration, Customs and Border Protection officers stood at the international boundary and turned back individuals without valid travel documents — even those expressly seeking asylum — preventing them from entering U.S. territory to begin the statutory screening process.
Al Otro Lado, an immigrant-rights group, and several asylum seekers challenged the policy in federal court, arguing that it violated statutory duties to inspect and process applicants. The Ninth Circuit, in a 2–1 decision, <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/22-55988/22-55988-2024-10-23.pdf?ts=1729701050">ruled</a> in favor of the plaintiffs. Judge Michelle Friedland’s majority opinion held that asylum seekers who reach the border and encounter U.S. officials have “arrived in” the United States for statutory purposes, even if physically located on the Mexican side of the line. She concluded that once an asylum seeker presents at the border, the government must inspect and process that individual.
A sharply divided Ninth Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc. In dissent from that denial, Judge Daniel Bress — joined by eleven others — argued that the panel’s interpretation “violates clear statutory text,” improperly applies U.S. law extraterritorially, and radically departs from longstanding understandings limiting asylum processing obligations to persons actually within U.S. territory.
The federal government, in its petition for certiorari, echoed those objections. It argued that the Ninth Circuit had effectively rewritten Congress’s chosen phrase “arrives in the United States” to mean merely “presents at the border,” a move dissenting judges called “breathtaking” and “radical.” The Solicitor General warned that, if left intact, the ruling would deprive the Executive Branch of a critical operational tool at the border — namely, the ability to manage migrant surges by preventing entry until capacity exists to process arrivals safely. The government stressed that for decades, administrations of both parties have used such practices during periods of overcrowding.
Although the challengers urged the Court to deny review — emphasizing that the metering policy was rescinded years earlier and that the case has “almost no present implications” — the Supreme Court nonetheless agreed to take up the dispute. By issuing the writ of certiorari, the Court signaled its intention to resolve the statutory meaning of “arrives in the United States” and determine whether the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation improperly expands asylum rights and unduly restricts executive border-management authority.

Migrant Crossings At The Southern Border Continue Despite Title 42 Ruling

Supreme Court To Decide Fate Of Border ‘Metering’ Policy Blocked By Left-Leaning Judges

Asylum

SCOTUS

Southern Border

Supreme Court

President Donald Trump said on Friday he would likely sue the BBC next week for as much as $5 billion after the British broadcaster admitted it wrongly edited a video of a speech he gave but insisted there was no legal basis for his claim.
The British Broadcasting Corporation has been plunged into its biggest crisis in decades after two senior leaders resigned following accusations of bias, including over the editing of Trump&#8217;s speech on January 6, 2021, when his supporters entered the Capitol.
Trump&#8217;s lawyers had initially set a Friday deadline for the BBC to retract its documentary or face a lawsuit for &#8220;no less&#8221; than $1 billion. They also demanded an apology and compensation for what they called &#8220;overwhelming reputational and financial harm,&#8221; according to a letter seen by Reuters.
The BBC, which has admitted its editing of Trump&#8217;s remarks was an &#8220;error of judgement,&#8221; sent a personal apology to Trump on Thursday but said it would not rebroadcast the documentary and rejected the defamation claim.
&#8220;We&#8217;ll sue them for anywhere between $1 billion and $5 billion, probably sometime next week,&#8221; Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he headed to Florida for the weekend.
&#8220;I think I have to do that, I mean, they&#8217;ve even admitted that they cheated,&#8221; he said. &#8220;They changed the words coming out of my mouth.&#8221;
Trump said he had not spoken with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, with whom he has built a solid relationship, about the issue, but that he planned to call him this weekend. He said Starmer had tried to reach him, and was &#8220;very embarrassed&#8221; by the incident.
The documentary, which aired on the BBC&#8217;s flagship &#8220;Panorama&#8221; news program, spliced together three video excerpts from Trump&#8217;s speech, creating the impression he was inciting the January 6, 2021, riot. His lawyers said this was &#8220;false and defamatory.&#8221;
In an interview with British right-leaning TV channel GB News, Trump said the edit was &#8220;impossible to believe&#8221; and compared it to election interference.
&#8220;I made a beautiful statement, and they made it into a not beautiful statement,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Fake news was a great term, except it&#8217;s not strong enough. This is beyond fake, this is corrupt.&#8221;
Trump said the BBC&#8217;s apology was not enough.
&#8220;When you say it&#8217;s unintentional, I guess if it&#8217;s unintentional, you don&#8217;t apologize,&#8221; he said.
BBC Chair Samir Shah sent a personal apology on Thursday to the White House and told lawmakers the edit was &#8220;an error of judgement.&#8221; The following day, British culture minister Lisa Nandy said the apology was &#8220;right and necessary.&#8221;
The broadcaster said it had no plans to rebroadcast the documentary and was investigating fresh allegations about editing practices that included the speech on another program, &#8220;Newsnight.&#8221;
The dispute has escalated into the broadcaster&#8217;s most serious crisis in decades. Its director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness quit this week over the controversy amid allegations of bias and editing failures.
Starmer told parliament on Wednesday he supported a &#8220;strong and independent BBC&#8221; but said the broadcaster must &#8220;get its house in order.&#8221;
&#8220;Some would rather the BBC didn&#8217;t exist. Some of them are sitting up there,&#8221; he said, pointing to opposition Conservative lawmakers.
&#8220;I’m not one of them. In an age of disinformation, the argument for an impartial British news service is stronger than ever.&#8221;
The BBC, founded in 1922 and funded mainly by a compulsory license fee, faces scrutiny over whether public money could be used to settle Trump&#8217;s claim.
Former media minister John Whittingdale said there would be &#8220;real anger&#8221; if license payers&#8217; money covered damages.
(Reporting by Nandita Bose and Andrea Shalal in Washington, Costas Pitas in Los Angeles and Sam Tabahriti in London; editing by Leslie Adler, Tom Hogue and Shri Navaratnam)

Trump Says He’ll Likely Sue BBC For Up To $5 Billion Over Edited Speech

Media

Media Bias

World

President Donald Trump issued a <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115529446165908851">Truth Social post</a> on Monday that centered on a major Supreme Court case that could reshape the limits of presidential power over U.S. trade policy.
President Trump warned that the U.S. Supreme Court “was given the wrong numbers” regarding the economic stakes of the pending tariff case. He stated that if the Court rules against him, the resulting “unwind” of the tariff system — reversing investments, refunds, and related measures — would exceed $3 trillion. He characterized that scenario as an “insurmountable National Security Event,” warning it could devastate the U.S. economy and threaten the country’s sustainability.
Trump’s statement is both an economic and political message, emphasizing that the stakes of the Supreme Court’s decision extend well beyond trade law. He suggests that an unfavorable ruling could require returning massive tariff revenues collected under his administration’s 2025 “reciprocal tariffs,” potentially exceeding $3 trillion when including lost investment and refunds. This would unwind a significant source of federal revenue and destabilize fiscal planning.
Trump is also framing tariffs as essential to protecting U.S. manufacturing and reducing dependence on foreign suppliers. Therefore, reversing them would not only hurt the economy but also compromise U.S. national security. By calling it a “national security event,” Trump connects trade policy to his broader presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), arguing that tariffs are a legitimate tool for addressing threats tied to trade deficits and foreign economic influence.
Trump’s claim that the Supreme Court “was given the wrong numbers” implies he believes the economic consequences have been understated to the justices, a move aimed at shaping public perception and potentially influencing the Court’s understanding of the stakes.
The Supreme Court case, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., consolidates challenges to Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose wide-reaching tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit <a href="https://www.swlaw.com/publication/what-if-the-supreme-court-overrules-the-reciprocal-tariffs-plan-now-for-refunds-protests-and-contract-reconciliation/">ruled</a> that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Lower courts have ruled against Trump, saying that IEEPA does not authorize open-ended tariffs and that such economic measures require a clear congressional delegation. If the justices affirm those rulings, it could force the government to refund hundreds of billions — possibly trillions — in tariff payments, upend trade contracts, and reshape the executive’s emergency powers. On the other hand, if the Court rules in favor of the administration, it will dramatically expand the president&#8217;s authority to set trade policy under emergency declarations.
The federal government <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/trump-warns-supreme-court-tariff-ruling-could-trigger-3t-unwind">collected about $213 billion</a> in tariffs through September 2025, with monthly records of more than $31 billion in late summer.  Some forecasts <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tariff-revenue-fiscal-year-2025-soars-10948543">project</a> around $3 trillion in tariff revenue over a decade. The Congressional Budget Office estimates these tariffs reduce deficits by $2.8 trillion over ten years but slightly dampen GDP and increase inflation by 0.4% by 2027.
According to a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inflation-tariffs-trump-prices-consumers/">study</a> by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, tariffs haven&#8217;t driven up consumer prices as much as some critics have predicted, because businesses want to see where tariff rates settle before they adjust their prices.

President Trump Takes Part In Swearing In Of US Ambassador To India

Trump Sounds Alarm: SCOTUS Tariff Ruling Could Trigger $3 Trillion Economic ‘Unwind’

Executive

Tariffs

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to revisit its landmark 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. This is the second time in almost five years that the high court has rejected a challenge without giving a reason. 
The court denied the appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky, whom lower courts found to have violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples by refusing to issue them marriage licenses, citing religious beliefs. She was jailed for contempt and ordered to pay <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kim-davis-fighting-back-after-ordered-to-pay-100000-to-gay-couple-could-end-up-at-scotus-legal-team-says">$360,000</a> in damages and fees. Davis tried to have the fine dropped by arguing she had First Amendment religious protection from liability.
“Like the abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, Obergefell was egregiously wrong from the start,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which represented Davis. “We will continue to work to overturn Obergefell. It is not a matter of if, but when the Supreme Court will overturn Obergefell.”
“Today, love won again,” said Kelley Robinson, president of the leftist Human Rights Campaign. “When public officials take an oath to serve communities, that promise extends to everyone &#8211; including LGBTQ+ people. The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences.&#8221;
To hear a case, at least four of the nine justices must vote to grant review, a practice known as the “rule of four.”
“If ever there was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic’s history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it,” David said in her petition to the court.
According to NPR, same-sex marriage would have still been protected on the federal level even if the Supreme Court had decided to hear Davis’s appeal. Former President Joe Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law in 2022, recognizing the legitimacy of same-sex marriages. If Obergefell were overturned, individual states could once again deny recognition to same-sex marriages.

8th Anniversary Of Supreme Court’s Obergefell Decision Legalizing Gay Marriage In The United States

SCOTUS Won’t Touch Same-Sex Marriage, Rejects Appeal From Kentucky Clerk

Federal prosecutors have charged two pitchers for the Cleveland Guardians on counts related to a Major League Baseball (MLB) gambling scheme.
Prosecutors unsealed an indictment against Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz on Sunday. The charging document alleges that the two professional athletes committed fraud, conspiracy, and bribery while collecting on bets and receiving kickbacks for their on-field performances.
“We are aware of the recent law enforcement action,” the Guardians told <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/09/sport/baseball-mlb-guardians-emmanuel-clase-luis-ortiz">CNN</a>. “We will continue to fully cooperate with both law enforcement and Major League Baseball as their investigations continue.”
Clase and Ortiz have been on paid leave from the MLB since July, when the league began investigating allegations related to the illegal gambling scheme. If found guilty, the two pitchers face a potential punishment of up to 20 years in prison, according to <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/09/cleveland-guardians-pitchers-indicted-gambling.html">CNBC</a>.
“Professional athletes … hold a position of trust — not only with their teammates and their professional leagues, but with fans who believe in fair play,” Joseph Nocella Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said in a <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/two-current-major-league-baseball-players-charged-sports-betting-and-money-laundering">statement</a>. “As alleged, the defendants sold that trust to gamblers by fixing pitches. In doing so, the defendants deprived the Cleveland Guardians and Major League Baseball of their honest services. They defrauded the online betting platforms where the bets were placed. And they betrayed America’s pastime.”
An attorney for Ortiz has maintained that his client is innocent of the charges.
“There is no credible evidence Luis knowingly did anything other than try to win games, with every pitch and in every inning. Luis looks forward to fighting these charges in court. The government’s case is weak and circumstantial. He will defend himself, and he will be (sic) prevail,” attorney Chris Georgali told CNBC.
The scheme traces back to 2023 when Clase agreed to work with “corrupt sports bettors” who would place wagers on the type and speed of Clase’s pitches. Clase would coordinate with the bettors on the pitch he would throw. In many cases, Clase’s pitches would hit “in the dirt, well outside the strike zone” to satisfy the wager, according to the Department of Justice.
Ortiz joined the scheme around June 2025 after he was traded to the Guardians in December 2024, according to prosecutors.
“Together with Clase, Ortiz agreed in advance to throw balls (instead of strikes) on pitches in two games in exchange for bribes and kickbacks. Before an MLB game on June 15, 2025, Ortiz agreed with his co-conspirators to throw a ball on a particular pitch in exchange for bribes. The bettors agreed to pay Ortiz a $5,000 bribe for throwing the rigged pitch and Clase a $5,000 bribe for arranging the rigged pitch,” the Justice Department press release states.
Clase is a three-time All-Star and two-time Reliever of the Year who has made more than $12 million over the course of his professional baseball career. He was set to make $6.4 million more in 2026, according to <a href="https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/46906636/guardians-emmanuel-clase-luis-ortiz-indicted-pitch-rigging">ESPN</a>.

Emmanuel Clase

‘Betrayed America’s Pastime’: MLB Pitchers Indicted In Betting Scam

‘Betrayed America’s Pastime’: MLB Pitchers Indicted In Rigged Sports Betting Scheme

Cleveland Guardians

gambling

Menu