#justice_department

Justice Department Launches Civil Rights Probe Into MLB Over Pride Hats Controversy The U.S. Justice Department has initiated a civil rights investigation into Major League Baseball (MLB) following a dispute over players’ use of Pride-themed hats during a game. The controversy centers on three San Francisco Giants pitchers who wrote Bible verses on their caps during the team’s Pride Night event on June 12. The league criticized the players for violating its uniform rules, prompting the Justice Department to refer the matter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to assess whether the disciplinary action constitutes religious discrimination. The incident occurred during a game against the Chicago Cubs, where pitchers Landen Roupp, JT Brubaker, and Ryan Walker inscribed Bible verses on their rainbow-colored Pride-themed hats. Pitcher Sam Hentges opted not to wear the themed cap at all. MLB issued a statement on June 13, asserting that writing on hats “violates our rules” and warned the players against future violations. The league emphasized that its rules apply uniformly, regardless of the message on the caps, and cited similar warnings for Mother’s Day messages and family names. Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon wrote a letter to MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred on June 14, stating that the Justice Department had referred the case to the EEOC. Dhillon argued that the Civil Rights Act prohibits MLB from unreasonably burdening players’ religious rights, particularly when the league promotes Pride messages. “Federal law is clear: employers must modify uniform requirements to reasonably accommodate employees’ religious practices,” Dhillon wrote.#justice_department #major_league_baseball #san_francisco_giants #equal_employment_opportunity_commission #landen_roupp

Justice Department Investigates Jennifer Siebel Newsom Amid Political Allegations The Justice Department’s probe into Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the wife of California Governor Gavin Newsom, has drawn public attention after Newsom accused the Trump-appointed administration of launching a politically motivated investigation. CNN confirmed that Siebel Newsom is under scrutiny, though a person familiar with the probe stated the investigation was initiated by the Sacramento-based U.S. attorney’s office, not the Justice Department’s Washington headquarters. The case centers on tax-related conduct, with investigators examining Siebel Newsom and others connected to Newsom. Federal investigators have conducted interviews with potential witnesses and issued grand jury subpoenas, according to a person close to the probe. Newsom’s office reported that records related to the family’s finances may have been subpoenaed, though it has not confirmed documentary subpoenas were issued. The investigation, which began last year, is being handled by teams in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., according to two sources. Newsom, a prominent critic of President Donald Trump and a potential 2028 presidential candidate, has publicly condemned the probe as an attack on his family. In a statement, Siebel Newsom called the investigation “presidential behavior” and vowed to “speak truth to power,” adding, “If they can’t intimidate me, they’ll go after the mother of our children.” She denied any wrongdoing and emphasized the family’s transparency. The probe into Siebel Newsom is separate from other investigations involving Newsom’s inner circle.#justice_department #gavin_newsom #xavier_becerra #todd_blanche #jennifer_siebel_newsom

Southern Poverty Law Center Asks Judge to Consider Sanctions Against DOJ for Sharing Unsigned Indictment Copy The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) filed a motion with a federal judge on Wednesday, requesting sanctions against federal prosecutors for allegedly violating grand jury secrecy rules by sharing an unsigned and unstamped copy of a superseding indictment with members of the media. The indictment, which the Justice Department (DOJ) announced on Tuesday, includes new allegations against the SPLC, accusing it of using donations to infiltrate hate groups and allegedly funding activities such as cross burnings and Ku Klux Klan (KKK) paraphernalia. The SPLC’s attorneys argued that the DOJ’s actions constituted a breach of federal procedures, as the unsigned version of the superseding indictment was released to journalists before it was formally docketed in court. They emphasized that the document was not the final, sealed version returned by the grand jury and contained metadata revealing the identities of DOJ attorneys who had edited it. The SPLC claimed the premature disclosure could prejudice its defense by creating a one-sided narrative that the organization could not address without further harm. The superseding indictment, which was publicly filed on Wednesday, retains the same 11 charges as the original April indictment: wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. These charges stem from allegations that the SPLC used donations to fund informants within extremist groups without disclosing the practice to donors or financial institutions. The new allegations, however, expand on this by suggesting the organization may have used funds to support activities associated with hate groups, though no additional defendants were named.#justice_department #cbs_news #southern_poor_law_center #ku_klux_klan #middle_district_of_alabama

Brain Drain Afflicts DOJ Unit Defending Trump on Immigration The Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation, a key unit tasked with defending President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, has faced significant attrition over the past year, with roughly a third of its attorneys leaving their posts. This exodus, which includes the departure of mid-level to senior legal professionals, has raised concerns about the unit’s capacity to handle ongoing litigation, particularly as cases related to the administration’s mandatory detention policies approach the Supreme Court. The office, which once employed over 300 attorneys at the start of Trump’s second term, has seen at least 100 depart since January 2025, according to former employees. The attrition has been attributed to a combination of factors, including an overwhelming caseload, leadership changes, and internal tensions. Former attorneys described a growing sense of demoralization, exacerbated by the ousting of several senior figures, including veteran DOJ litigator Erez Reuveni, who was fired in April 2025. Reuveni, a whistleblower, had accused senior DOJ leaders of coordinating to defy court orders in deportation cases, an allegation the department denied. The departures have forced the DOJ to rely on politically appointed counsel from the Civil Division’s front office to handle immigration cases, according to a Bloomberg Law analysis of court records. The Office of Immigration Litigation has played a central role in defending the administration’s immigration policies, including the thousands of habeas cases involving detained migrants and litigation over Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man mistakenly deported to a Salvadoran prison.#justice_department #donald_trump #supreme_court #erez_reuveni #civil_division

Federal Judge Reopens Trump’s $10 Billion IRS Case, Questions ‘Weaponization’ Fund A federal judge in Miami has reopened President Donald Trump’s long-standing $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, marking a dramatic reversal just days after Trump voluntarily dismissed the case. The decision by Judge Kathleen M. Williams, an Obama appointee, to revive the matter has sparked renewed scrutiny of the settlement agreement that the Justice Department finalized to resolve the dispute. The ruling comes amid allegations that the deal, which established a $1.8 billion fund for individuals claiming victims of government “weaponization” by Democrats, may have been based on deceptive practices. The case, which had been dismissed by Trump last week, was reopened following a request from a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges. These legal experts urged Judge Williams to investigate the circumstances surrounding the settlement, arguing that Trump’s agreement raised serious concerns about his honesty and manipulation of the judicial system. The former judges’ intervention prompted the judge to issue a stern order to examine the allegations, potentially leading to further inquiries into the actions of Justice Department officials who approved the deal. The settlement, announced after Trump withdrew the lawsuit, included provisions that granted Trump, his family, and his businesses significant tax benefits. It also created a fund intended to compensate individuals who claimed they were harmed by the IRS’s alleged targeting of political opponents. However, the judge’s decision to reopen the case suggests skepticism about the legitimacy of the agreement, particularly given the conflicting interests involved.#justice_department #donald_trump #federal_judge #internal_revenue_service #kathleen_m_williams

Federal Judge Halts Trump’s $1.8 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization’ Fund Amid Legal Challenges A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” a controversial initiative created as part of a settlement with the president, his family, and the Trump Organization. The order, issued by U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, came after a Jan. 6 prosecutor and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to halt the fund. The decision prevents the administration from taking further action on the fund, including transferring money, processing claims, or disbursing funds, while legal motions to block its distribution remain pending. The fund, managed by the Justice Department, was designed to provide financial assistance to individuals allegedly targeted by the government during investigations into events surrounding January 6, 2021. However, its existence has drawn sharp criticism from both Democrats and Republicans. Opponents have accused the administration of creating a “slush fund” to benefit Trump’s allies, with legal experts warning about the lack of public oversight in its management. Senate Republican leaders delayed a vote on a GOP bill to fund ICE and Border Patrol until June, citing concerns over the fund as a key reason. The judge’s order emphasizes the need to prevent irreversible disbursement of funds while legal challenges are unresolved. The process for applicants to access the fund cannot officially begin until five commissioners are appointed to oversee its distribution. Despite this, individuals claiming they were targeted by the government have already requested money, though the exact application process remains unclear.#justice_department #trump_administration #federal_judge #jan_6_prosecutions #andrew_floyd

Woman Jailed for Nearly 42 Years in $250 Million Minnesota Fraud Case Aimee Bock, a 45-year-old leader of a Minnesota non-profit organization, was sentenced to 41 years in federal prison on Thursday for orchestrating a $250 million scheme to defraud federal Covid-19 relief funds. The conviction, which followed a 2022 trial, marks the largest known fraud against U.S. government relief programs during the pandemic, according to the Justice Department. Bock’s sentencing comes as part of a broader crackdown on financial misconduct in Minnesota, where federal prosecutors have also announced new charges against 15 individuals accused of defrauding Medicaid and other welfare programs of $90 million. The fraud scheme, which targeted a federally funded child nutrition program, involved Bock’s non-profit group, Feeding Our Future. Prosecutors alleged that she used the organization to siphon millions of dollars intended for vulnerable families, funneling the funds into personal accounts and offshore entities. The Justice Department described the case as a “systematic and sophisticated” operation that exploited pandemic-era aid to enrich herself and others. Bock was charged in 2022 with conspiracy to defraud the government, and her role as the ringleader was central to the prosecution’s case. During the sentencing hearing at the federal courthouse in Minneapolis, Bock broke down in tears as she addressed U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel. She expressed deep remorse, stating, “I don’t have the words to express just how horrible I feel. I know I’m responsible.” Federal prosecutors had initially sought a 50-year prison term, arguing that Bock’s actions caused significant harm to public trust and diverted critical resources from those in need.#justice_department #minnesota #aimee_bock #feeding_our_future #us_federal_prison

Justice Department Rolls Back Gun Regulations Amid ATF Leadership Confirmation The U.S. Justice Department announced sweeping changes to federal gun regulations on Wednesday, marking a significant shift in firearm policy that aligns with the priorities of Second Amendment advocates within President Donald Trump’s political base. The revisions, which include the repeal of a 2024 Biden administration rule requiring firearms dealers to conduct background checks on buyers at gun shows and other non-physical retail locations, were signed shortly after the Senate confirmed Robert Cekada as the new head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The proposed changes target what critics describe as the “gun show loophole,” a provision that previously allowed unlicensed dealers to sell firearms without performing background checks on buyers. This loophole, which has been a focal point of gun control debates, was addressed by the Biden administration’s 2024 rule, which aimed to close it by mandating background checks for all firearm sales outside traditional brick-and-mortar stores. However, the new revisions seek to reverse this policy, with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche calling the overhaul “the most comprehensive regulatory reform package in the history” of the ATF. Blanche argued that the changes align with Supreme Court precedents and reduce unnecessary burdens on lawful gun owners and dealers. Gun control advocates condemned the move as reckless, particularly in the wake of a recent incident in which a man armed with firearms and knives attempted to storm the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.#justice_department #atf #robert_cekada #everytown_for_gun_safety #todd_blanche

Justice Department Demands Michigan County Turn Over 2024 Ballots The U.S. Justice Department has formally requested that Wayne County, Michigan, provide all ballots from the November 2024 election, marking another significant step in the Trump administration’s ongoing scrutiny of voting processes. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon issued a letter to Wayne County’s chief election official on April 14, citing three election fraud convictions and five lawsuits alleging fraud against the county. The letter demands the county deliver ballots, ballot receipts, and envelopes within 14 days. Wayne County, which includes Detroit, is a key Democratic stronghold. Despite Michigan’s overall support for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential race, the county voted overwhelmingly for Joe Biden, with Biden securing nearly 250,000 more votes than Trump. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, condemned the Justice Department’s request as “absurd” and “baseless,” accusing the Trump administration of weaponizing federal agencies to undermine state elections. She argued that the cited convictions and lawsuits prove Michigan’s election safeguards are effective, with “rare” instances of fraud that have been addressed. Nessel criticized the administration for recycling debunked 2020 election conspiracy theories to justify the ballot demand, stating it aims to “bully clerks and spread fear.” Her office has vowed to defend voting rights if the inquiry escalates. The Trump administration’s actions come amid broader efforts to exert federal control over elections, including a recent executive order to create federal voter lists to tighten mail-voting rules. This move has drawn lawsuits from Democrats and voting rights advocates.#justice_department #trump_administration #dana_nessel #harmeet_dhillon #wayne_county_michigan

Justice Department Probes NFL Over Antitrust Exemptions Amid Streaming and Ticket Cost Concerns The U.S. Justice Department has reportedly launched an investigation into the National Football League (NFL) to determine whether the league has engaged in anticompetitive practices that could undermine its legal exemptions from antitrust laws. The probe, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, centers on the NFL’s use of its special legal status under the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which allows the league to negotiate TV deals without violating antitrust regulations. The investigation follows growing concerns from regulators, lawmakers, and fans about the NFL’s expanding reliance on streaming services and soaring ticket prices, which have made it increasingly difficult for average fans to access games. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has publicly criticized the NFL’s approach to streaming, arguing that fans are now forced to juggle multiple subscriptions to watch games, with costs exceeding $1,500 annually for services like YouTube TV, Amazon Prime, Peacock, and Netflix. Carr emphasized that the current system has created a “frustrating and costly” experience for viewers, warning that the NFL’s push to monetize streaming could jeopardize its antitrust exemption. “You effectively have to have a computer science degree to decipher this,” Carr said, highlighting the complexity of navigating the fragmented streaming landscape. The probe comes amid broader scrutiny of sports leagues’ use of antitrust exemptions. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, has called for a review of the NFL’s legal standing.#justice_department #sports_broadcasting_act #national_football_league #senator_mike_lee #brendan_carr

Justice Department Investigating NFL Over Subscription Fee Concerns The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether the National Football League (NFL) is imposing excessive subscription fees on fans, according to a person briefed on the matter. The probe centers on antitrust and anticompetitive practices, focusing on how the league’s streaming platform exemptions and pricing strategies may conflict with the 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act. The investigation follows a letter from Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, who requested a review of the NFL’s media rights structure and questioned whether streaming package fees violate the act. The NFL has long relied on a mix of free broadcast television and digital platforms to distribute its games. In February, the league stated that 87% of its games are shown on free broadcast television, alongside digital platforms. The NFL emphasized that its distribution model is the most accessible and fan-friendly in sports, ensuring broad availability of its content. However, critics argue that the shift from traditional broadcast TV to fragmented streaming services has led to higher costs for fans. Senator Lee highlighted this in a letter, noting that fans spent nearly $1,000 on cable and streaming subscriptions to watch every NFL game during the previous season. The 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act allowed sports leagues to negotiate media rights without facing antitrust scrutiny, enabling them to secure lucrative deals with broadcasters. Over time, however, the media landscape has evolved, with games now spread across multiple platforms, including cable, satellite, and streaming services.#justice_department #federal_communications_commission #sports_broadcasting_act #national_football_league #senator_mike_lee

FBI Director Kash Patel's Personal Email Breached, Iran-Linked Hackers Claim Responsibility A hacker group affiliated with Iran has claimed responsibility for breaching the personal email account of FBI Director Kash Patel. The group, known as Handala Hack Team, stated on its website that Patel "will now find his name among the list of successfully hacked victims." The breach reportedly exposed a mix of personal and professional communications from 2010 to 2019, according to a sample of the data reviewed by Reuters. While the news outlet could not immediately verify the authenticity of the published emails, the content appeared to include both private and work-related correspondence. The U.S. Justice Department confirmed to Reuters that Patel's emails had been compromised but provided no further details. The FBI did not respond to requests for comment, and the hacker group did not reply to messages. The incident has raised concerns about cybersecurity vulnerabilities, particularly for high-profile officials. The Handala Hack Team’s claim adds to a growing list of cyberattacks attributed to state-sponsored actors, with Iran-linked groups frequently targeting U.S. government systems. However, the specific motives behind this breach remain unclear. Analysts have noted that such attacks often aim to gather intelligence or disrupt operations, though the exact intent in this case is yet to be determined. The breach underscores the ongoing challenges of securing sensitive digital communications, especially for individuals in positions of authority. While the Justice Department acknowledged the compromise, it did not specify whether any classified information was accessed or how the breach occurred.#justice_department #iran #fbi #fbi_director_kash_patel #handala_hack_team

A federal judge in New Jersey accused the Trump administration’s Justice Department of undermining decades of trust built with the courts U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi criticized prosecutors in New Jersey, stating that the Trump-era DOJ had eroded the confidence of the court. The judge ordered all three senior leaders of the U.S. Attorney’s Office to testify before he could determine whether a sentencing proceeding could continue. The ruling followed a tense courtroom exchange where Quraishi questioned the legitimacy of the office’s leadership structure and challenged prosecutors over their handling of a case. The judge’s decision came amid a broader conflict between the federal judiciary and the Trump administration, which has faced repeated legal challenges for its approach to appointing top prosecutors and managing immigration cases. In New Jersey, judges have previously ruled that the DOJ violated constitutional principles by unilaterally installing leadership without judicial or congressional input. Quraishi’s latest ruling reinforced these concerns, emphasizing that the current leadership structure—comprising three lawyers overseeing different divisions—was not legally valid and required disqualification of the officials. During Monday’s hearing, Quraishi accused Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosenblum of failing to address unresolved questions about the office’s leadership. The judge also ordered Mark Coyne, the chief of appeals, to leave the courtroom after Coyne attempted to speak without being officially involved in the case. Quraishi warned that the office had “lost the confidence and the trust of this court,” a statement that reflected his frustration with what he described as a breakdown in institutional integrity.#justice_department #new_jersey #trump_administration #federal_judge #zahid_n_quraishi

Lindsey Halligan, a former U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, is facing an investigation by Florida’s bar association over her legal actions against individuals associated with President Trump. The probe, initiated by the Florida Bar, follows complaints filed by the Campaign for Accountability, a nonprofit organization that has scrutinized her conduct. The bar association’s letter to the group confirmed that an investigation is already underway, with Halligan, who left her position in January, being notified of the process. The Florida Bar’s inquiry could result in disciplinary measures, including potential disbarment, though the process is complex and typically spans years. The bar can initiate investigations and gather facts but must forward its findings to a grievance committee, which determines if there is probable cause to accuse an attorney of misconduct. If the committee finds evidence, the case would then be reviewed by state courts, which hold the authority to revoke a lawyer’s license. Halligan’s actions as a U.S. attorney drew criticism from career prosecutors, who opposed her efforts to pursue criminal cases against Trump’s political adversaries. Her work has been a focal point of legal and ethical debates, with judges and legal experts questioning the boundaries of her conduct. The ongoing investigation may serve as a deterrent for other attorneys accused of overstepping legal limits or misleading courts, a trend that has become increasingly common in recent months. The Justice Department, which has faced significant staff turnover due to resignations and firings, is actively seeking new hires to replace departed employees.#justice_department #u_s_attorney #lindsey_halligan #campaign_for_accountability #florida_bar

Trump administration relaunches defense of law firm executive orders The U.S. Justice Department announced on Tuesday that it would resume its efforts to reinstate President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting four prominent law firms. This move marks a reversal of the administration’s previous attempt to withdraw its appeals in the cases, which had been abruptly halted just one day earlier. The Justice Department had initially sought to dismiss its appeals in the cases involving Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey. These firms were targeted over their legal work, diversity initiatives, and political affiliations. The executive orders, which were issued by Trump in 2020, aimed to penalize the law firms for their representation of the former president and their alleged ties to his political agenda. Federal judges had previously ruled against the orders, citing legal concerns. However, the Trump administration had appealed those decisions, arguing that the orders were justified under the president’s authority. On Monday, the administration had requested the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to dismiss its appeals, signaling a potential retreat from the legal battle. But by Tuesday, the Justice Department had reversed course, asking the court to withdraw its request to dismiss the appeals. This abrupt change suggests the administration is recommitting to its original stance, despite the earlier attempt to step back. The decision to relaunch the defense of the executive orders comes amid ongoing legal and political tensions surrounding Trump’s policies. The case highlights the broader debate over executive power and the legal boundaries of presidential authority.#justice_department #trump_administration #perkins_coie #wilmerhale #jenner_block

Justice Department Begins Antitrust Trial Against Live Nation Amid Settlement Speculation The U.S. Justice Department initiated its antitrust trial against Live Nation on Tuesday, with the possibility of a settlement lingering over the proceedings. The lawsuit, filed in 2024 by the DOJ and 40 state attorneys general, accuses Live Nation of leveraging its dominance as the nation’s largest concert promoter, ticket seller, and venue owner to stifle competition. The company has previously attempted to dismiss the case, which was brought under the Biden administration, but recent developments suggest it may seek a resolution under the current Trump administration. The trial resumed Monday after a 12-person jury was selected, with opening arguments held in a Manhattan federal courthouse. Despite the ongoing legal battle, questions remain about whether a last-minute settlement could disrupt the proceedings. DOJ attorney David Dahlquist emphasized the case’s focus on monopolistic power, stating that the concert industry is “broken” due to Live Nation’s control. The DOJ alleges the company holds an estimated 86% share of primary concert ticketing at major venues and dominates the amphitheater market, using this leverage to force venues into exclusive contracts with Live Nation as promoters and Ticketmaster as ticket agents. Live Nation’s defense, led by attorney David Marriott, argues that the DOJ’s market share calculations are selective and that the ticketing industry is more competitive than claimed. Marriott highlighted that Live Nation does not serve as the promoter for all major artists, citing Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour as an example. The Swift ticketing issues, including system outages and long wait times during the record-breaking onsale, remain a focal point of the case.#justice_department #taylor_swift #live_nation #david_dahlquist #david_marriott

Populists are losing a Maga tug of war over US antitrust policy Gail Slater’s exit suggests pro-business Republicans are ascendant in Donald Trump’s justice department #Donald_Trump #justice_department #Gail_Slater #Maga_tug #policy_Gail #pro-business_Republicans

Police look into links between Epstein and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Files released by US justice department showed former prince shared information with child sex offender #Andrew_Mountbatten-Windsor #Mountbatten-Windsor_Files #Files_released #sex_offender #justice_department #department_showed