Lead Story
New York Times Wins End to Subpoenas in Trump Plane Leak Probe
US prosecutors have withdrawn subpoenas issued to journalists at The New York Times (NYT) who reported on security concerns surrounding President Donald Trump’s travel on a new Air Force One aircraft donated by Qatar.
A prosecutor from Manhattan US Attorney Jay Clayton’s office informed a federal judge on Thursday that the government would withdraw the subpoenas, which were issued on July 10 as part of an investigation into the alleged leak of sensitive national security information.
The subpoenas were the latest move by the Trump administration to compel journalists to disclose confidential sources in leak investigations — a practice that press freedom advocates have warned could discourage investigative reporting.
US District Judge Arun Subramanian questioned government lawyers for around 90 minutes about procedural issues in the investigation, including the handling of subpoenas seeking reporters’ phone records.
Following the hearing, prosecutor Sean Buckley told the court that the government was “prepared unilaterally to withdraw the subpoenas”, while adding that the investigation remained ongoing and that officials could seek new subpoenas against the journalists in the future.
Clayton, who was nominated by Trump to become the next US Director of National Intelligence, issued the subpoenas after The New York Times reported that Trump had continued using the existing Air Force One aircraft after concerns were raised that the new plane donated by Qatar lacked anti-missile and other defensive systems.
The government argued that the newspaper’s reporting raised a “substantial national security concern” because it involved the alleged disclosure of classified national defence information while the President was travelling during a period of heightened tensions with a foreign adversary, an apparent reference to Iran.
The reports were based on anonymous sources and emerged around the time a ceasefire in the US-Israeli conflict with Iran collapsed.
The New York Times had asked Judge Subramanian to dismiss the subpoenas, arguing that they were improperly issued and violated constitutional protections for a free press under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
In court filings, the newspaper alleged that the subpoenas were intended to intimidate and harass journalists. It also accused prosecutors of failing to follow internal Justice Department rules governing the use of subpoenas against members of the media, which require such measures to be used only in exceptional circumstances and with senior-level approval.
A Justice Department spokesperson said the investigation was continuing and that the government would prosecute individuals responsible for leaking classified information that threatened national security.
Buckley denied that the subpoenas were improperly issued but acknowledged that the Department of Justice had failed to notify reporters that their phone records had separately been obtained through subpoenas, as required under applicable rules.
Following the hearing, however, The New York Times said the government had effectively acknowledged that the subpoenas violated legal requirements and “should never have been issued”.
In a court filing earlier in the week, prosecutors argued that the First Amendment does not provide journalists with absolute protection from being required to disclose information during criminal investigations.
Growing Battle Over Press Freedom
Both Republican and Democratic administrations have previously sought to compel journalists to reveal confidential sources during leak investigations. However, press freedom organisations have accused the Trump administration of using subpoenas and search warrants against media organisations too aggressively, including actions involving The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.
Critics have also alleged that Trump has used government authority and private lawsuits to pressure and intimidate news organisations.
The administration has rejected those accusations, saying its actions are aimed at prosecuting individuals who leak classified information rather than targeting journalists. Trump’s private legal team has separately argued that it is seeking accountability for what it describes as inaccurate media coverage.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
US Revives ‘Alien Terrorist’ Court, Setting the Stage for a Lengthy Legal Battle
The Trump administration faces an arduous legal battle and mounting due process questions as it activates a little-used court designed to hear deportation cases involving suspected non-citizen terrorists, Bloomberg Law reported.
The US Department of Justice’s National Security Division launched proceedings last week before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC) and is expected to expand on its application in a sealed submission on Wednesday. It is the first case to come before the court since it was established in 1996.
Congress created the ATRC to conduct individual deportation hearings involving suspected terrorists where the evidence is considered so sensitive that its disclosure could threaten national security.
Successive administrations have refrained from using the court, partly because other legal mechanisms have been available to detain and monitor suspected terrorists, according to former national security officials from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Other concerns have included the court’s strict requirements for the use of classified evidence and the possibility that individuals could be deported without being allowed to examine the government’s case against them.
“This is essentially stepping into a car that has never run since it was released from the factory legislatively,” said Aram Gavoor, who served as Senior Counsel for National Security at the DOJ during President Donald Trump’s first term and the early part of Joe Biden’s administration.
“Because it’s a series of firsts, naturally the court is going to want to get it right,” Gavoor said.
Judges serving on the long-dormant court are expected to examine the Justice Department’s arguments closely as the administration continues to face broader judicial scrutiny over due process concerns relating to detained immigrants and other legal challenges to President Trump’s deportation agenda, former officials said.
DOJ spokesperson Emily Covington said the department intended to “use every tool available to bring alien terrorists to justice and remove them from the United States, including this court.”
Covington declined to comment further because the case remains under seal and its details are classified.
Dormant History
The administration’s decision to activate the court surprised former DOJ and DHS lawyers, who noted that the federal government has historically relied on alternative counter-terrorism and immigration laws.
When it was created, the ATRC was regarded as a major legislative counter-terrorism initiative. It was modelled on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which reviews and authorises government applications for electronic surveillance and other national security measures.
The ATRC consists of five US district court judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. All current members also serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Under federal law, the ATRC may approve a removal application if the government establishes that the individual falls within the legal definition of an “alien terrorist” and that pursuing deportation through another legal route would pose national security risks.
A 2004 report by a bipartisan national commission on terrorism found that DOJ lawyers had examined at least 100 potential cases for referral to the ATRC since its creation, but none proceeded.
During the Obama administration, the DOJ’s National Security Division reviewed whether the ATRC could be used to remove members of Al-Qaeda in Iraq living in the United States where proving terrorist links depended on classified evidence, said Chris Hardee, who served as the division’s Chief of Law and Policy from 2013 until last year.
“We concluded that it would not help in any case because, even if we could not pursue terrorism charges, there were criminal and immigration options that avoided relying on classified information, such as immigration fraud,” Hardee said.
He added that those alternatives were “far preferable” to relying on “a novel law in a specialised court that had never heard a case”.
The ATRC’s purpose also runs contrary to the broader philosophy of US counter-terrorism policy, said Thomas Warrick, a former senior DHS counter-terrorism official.
“If we had evidence that somebody was a terrorist, and especially if they’d committed terrorist acts against the United States, the whole purpose was to try to bring them here so they could be prosecuted, convicted and then put in jail,” said Warrick, now with the Atlantic Council.
Once an individual leaves the United States, “you lose oversight over what they’re doing or who their contacts are”, he said.
Logistical Challenges
The Trump administration also faces significant legal and procedural hurdles, particularly in relation to the handling of classified evidence, immigration law analysts said.
Under federal law, classified evidence may only be admitted if the ATRC concludes that the government’s unclassified summary provides sufficient information to enable the individual to prepare a defence.
If the court determines that the proposed summary is inadequate, it may still approve the application and proceed to a hearing, but only if it concludes that both the individual’s continued presence in the United States and disclosure of the summary would cause serious and irreparable harm to national security or to a person’s physical safety.
Lawful permanent residents are entitled to have a special attorney appointed to examine and challenge classified evidence on their behalf.
However, that safeguard does not automatically extend to other non-citizens, raising concerns that some individuals could face deportation without ever seeing the evidence against them, said Margy O’Herron, a former senior immigration adviser in the Biden administration who spent nearly two decades as a DOJ attorney.
As the Trump administration has increasingly relied on rarely used laws to advance its deportation agenda—including the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — the activation of the ATRC “appears to be the latest weapon in its scorched-earth deportation strategy”, O’Herron said.
The court’s secretive nature also limits public and congressional oversight of the Justice Department, according to Elora Mukherjee, Director of Columbia Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic.
The only indication of the court’s thinking so far came in a 16 July order requesting additional submissions from the government. ATRC Chief Judge Joan Ericksen stated that the court had questions “about the nexus that the government alleges between the actions of the respondent and the specific sections and subsections it invokes with respect to those actions”.
“The answers persuaded the Court that the Government could benefit from the opportunity for more thoughtful consideration,” Ericksen wrote.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Investors Bypass Litigation Funders to Directly Finance Legal Claims
Investors seeking returns from litigation are increasingly bypassing traditional litigation funders and putting money directly into law firms, legal claims and case portfolios, Bloomberg law reported.
By moving away from intermediaries, investors gain greater control over where their capital is deployed and can retain a larger share of potential proceeds when cases succeed. However, they also lose the specialist expertise that litigation funders provide in assessing risks, valuing claims and managing legal investments.
“Everyone is obviously trying to find ways to cut costs and reduce fees,” said Mohsin Patel, co-founder of litigation finance broker Risk Factor Management. Removing the intermediary is “one way they have found they can do that”.
The shift reflects growing investor confidence in the complexities of litigation finance, a market that has expanded significantly since the practice emerged in the US three decades ago. Litigation funders, which seek returns uncorrelated with traditional financial markets, committed $2.8 billion to commercial legal claims last year, compared with $2.3 billion in 2024, according to litigation finance broker Westfleet Advisors.
Although the industry does not publish detailed data on investment flows, brokers, funders and consultants say they are seeing a rise in investors choosing to finance cases directly rather than investing through litigation finance funds.
“It is one of the clearest shifts in the market over the last couple of years,” said Jim Batson, chief investment officer of Siltstone Capital’s legal finance strategy.
Recent cases highlight the trend. Court filings revealed that HPS Investment Partners, a subsidiary of BlackRock, provided an advance against a judgment in a high-profile Florida case. JPMorgan Asset Management also provided financing to two mass tort law firms based on expected legal fees.
Direct investment represents a departure from the traditional litigation finance model. Historically, investors participated as limited partners in funds, while litigation finance companies acted as managers, selecting cases and deploying capital.
However, many investors are now moving away from this structure. Kelly Daley, founder of advisory firm Celsia Capital, said institutional investors increasingly want greater involvement in selecting individual opportunities rather than allowing fund managers to make decisions across a portfolio.
“There is a shortage of capital interested” in the traditional structure, Daley said. Investors are attracted to having “front-of-market litigation assets brought directly to them for direct investment”.
Changing Capital Landscape
The traditional commercial litigation finance sector has faced challenges as some investors reduce allocations through conventional channels. According to Westfleet, a relatively small number of established participants drove a 23 per cent increase in new litigation finance commitments in 2025. However, overall investment levels remain below the peak reached in 2022.
“Many funders continue to face significant challenges in raising new capital from investors,” Westfleet said in a March report, adding that these constraints have resulted in more cautious underwriting and selective deployment of funds.
Batson said investors have become increasingly frustrated by the long timelines associated with legal investments before receiving returns.
“That has made allocators wary of blind pools and more comfortable with transactions they can evaluate on their own merits,” he said. “A direct deal allows investors to see exactly what they own.”
Some investors are also partnering with specialist litigation finance managers on individual cases. Rather than committing capital to broad funds, they approach experienced legal finance firms to evaluate specific opportunities and invest alongside them.
Growing Role of Insurance
Despite the growing appetite for direct investment, legal assets remain complex, and inexperienced investors can struggle to accurately assess the value and risks of litigation claims.
“Underwriting litigation is not the easiest thing to do and it is very different from credit underwriting,” said Charles Agee, founder of Westfleet.
To manage risks, many direct investors are increasingly turning to insurance products, said Rebecca Berrebi, a litigation finance and special situations consultant at Litigation Finance Advisors. Insurance provides a more familiar risk assessment framework compared with legal assets.
These policies can protect investors against adverse court outcomes or guarantee minimum returns. Instead of focusing only on legal issues such as the likely duration of a case, investors assess factors such as the insurer’s ability and willingness to pay.
Patel said such insurance products help address concerns over lengthy litigation timelines by guaranteeing returns after a specified period. While premiums can be costly, investors view them as a trade-off for greater stability.
“Capital preservation is kind of the name of the game for them,” Patel said. “They are willing to give up some upside if it means they have protection on the downside.”
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger Hits Legal Roadblock as Judge Raises Antitrust Concerns
A US federal judge has temporarily halted Paramount Skydance Corp.’s proposed $110 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc., saying the merger could potentially violate antitrust laws.
US District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín in Oakland, California, on Monday ordered the companies to delay completion of the deal for 14 days. Paramount and Warner Bros. had been hoping to close the transaction as early as July 22.
California and 11 other states filed a lawsuit on July 13 seeking to block the Hollywood mega-merger. The states argue that combining two of the five largest film studios would reduce competition in film production and cable television distribution.
Paramount said it would continue to “vigorously defend” the transaction.
“We are confident the evidence will demonstrate that the state attorneys general’s antitrust arguments are without merit, as their alleged markets and claims of anticompetitive effects have no basis in modern market realities,” the company said in a statement. “This merger is lawful, pro-competitive, and will benefit consumers, creators, workers and the entertainment industry.”
The judge has scheduled a hearing for August 3 to decide whether the temporary block should be extended. The court will then consider whether the merger should remain on hold until a full trial determines whether the transaction breaches federal antitrust laws.
Paramount had been close to completing the acquisition after receiving approval from the US Department of Justice. European regulators were also expected to clear the deal on July 22, subject to limited concessions.
However, the delay creates significant financial pressure for Paramount. For every day beyond September, the company could be required to pay Warner Bros. shareholders millions of dollars in “ticking fees”. If the court ultimately rejects the merger, Paramount could face a $7 billion termination fee, in addition to the $2.8 billion it paid to Netflix Inc. to withdraw from the bidding process.
Paramount Chief Executive Officer David Ellison has argued that the merger would strengthen the company’s streaming ambitions by combining Paramount+ and HBO Max. Warner Bros.’ major franchises, including Harry Potter, Batman and The Lord of the Rings, were expected to provide additional content for the streaming platforms. Warner’s cable networks, including CNN, HGTV and Discovery Channel, would also become part of the expanded entertainment group.
California has requested a trial date in April 2027. Paramount, however, is seeking a decision on the preliminary injunction before September 30, when the daily payments to Warner Bros. shareholders are expected to begin.
In her ruling, Judge Martínez-Olguín said the states had demonstrated that “serious questions going to the merits remain” in their challenge to the merger.
“This is a critical first win in our case to ensure this mega-merger never sees the light of day,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. He argued that history showed the risks of excessive concentration of market power, including fewer opportunities, reduced competition and lower-quality services.
Shares of Paramount fell as much as 2.2% following the ruling and were down 1.2% at 3.47pm in New York. Warner Bros. shares dropped 3.7% to $25.87.
The states’ lawsuit argues that the merged company would control about 27% of the market for films receiving wide theatrical releases. They also claim the combined entity would control more than 30% of major blockbuster releases — defined as films with large production budgets and broad cinema distribution.
If completed, the merger would leave only four major players controlling more than 90% of the wide-release theatrical distribution market: the new Paramount-Warner Bros. entity, The Walt Disney Company, Universal Pictures and Sony Pictures Entertainment.
“Plaintiffs present compelling evidence that the combined firm resulting from the transaction will possess substantial market share in the wide-release theatrical distribution market,” Judge Martínez-Olguín wrote in her 10-page order. “On this combined firm market share alone, the Court is persuaded that it can presume the proposed merger is likely to violate antitrust laws.”
Under the merger agreement, Paramount has until June 4, 2027, to complete the acquisition. However, it must begin paying Warner Bros. shareholders a daily fee of $7 million from September 30 until the transaction closes.
Paramount has maintained that the merger would help it compete more effectively with technology giants such as Amazon and Netflix in the rapidly changing streaming market. The company has also promised to release at least 30 films in cinemas annually — a commitment the states have challenged as insufficient to address competition concerns.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
DOJ Subpoenas Reignite Battle Over Executive Privilege and Big Law
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has defended its decision to subpoena 13 leading US law firms, arguing that the move is necessary to safeguard the confidentiality of legal advice provided to President Donald Trump, even as it deepens an already contentious dispute with the American Bar Association (ABA).
According to the DOJ, the subpoenas seek information about communications between the firms and Boris Epshteyn, President Trump’s personal lawyer, reinforcing the department’s argument that the ABA should obtain any relevant information from its own member firms rather than compel testimony from one of the President’s closest advisers.
The subpoenas, first reported by The New York Times, come amid an ongoing lawsuit filed by the ABA challenging what it has described as the Trump administration’s policy of intimidating law firms. The litigation centres on both executive orders issued against several prominent firms and agreements reached with others.
A DOJ spokesperson said the department’s motion is consistent with longstanding constitutional principles protecting a president’s ability to receive confidential legal advice from trusted advisers. The department maintains that compelling Epshteyn to disclose private communications would undermine that principle.
The latest development has once again placed the administration’s relationship with the legal profession under the spotlight. The ABA has alleged that the White House sought to pressure firms through executive actions and negotiations, while the administration maintains that its actions were lawful and aimed at addressing concerns over legal representation and professional conduct.
Court filings identify Epshteyn as a key liaison between the Trump administration and major private law firms. The ABA’s subpoena sought information about discussions surrounding agreements reportedly reached with nine firms, as well as executive orders targeting four others.
Those executive orders attempted to restrict the affected firms’ access to classified information and federal facilities, while also threatening government contracts involving their clients. Four of the targeted firms successfully challenged the measures in court, with federal judges ruling that the orders were unconstitutional. The rulings are now under appeal.
Separately, nine prominent firms — including Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins and Simpson Thacher — agreed to provide approximately US$940 million in pro bono legal services under arrangements reached with the Trump administration, agreements that have continued to generate debate within the legal community.
The DOJ has now asked the court to quash the ABA’s subpoena issued to Epshteyn, arguing that the confidentiality of presidential legal advice is a constitutional safeguard that extends beyond any individual administration.
The dispute therefore extends beyond a procedural disagreement over subpoenas. It raises broader constitutional questions about executive privilege, the independence of the legal profession and the extent to which government can engage with — or exert influence over —private law firms. With appeals continuing and the ABA’s lawsuit still pending, the case is likely to shape the evolving relationship between the executive branch and the legal profession.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Goldman Lawyer Tells Congress Epstein Emails Were Misinterpreted
Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s former general counsel has defended her association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein before US lawmakers, saying he was a “masterful liar” who used her and others to enhance his reputation.
Kathryn Ruemmler, who stepped down as the investment bank’s top lawyer in June, told the House Oversight Committee that she regrets communicating with Epstein and that several of their exchanges have been misrepresented or taken out of context.
According to prepared remarks seen by Bloomberg News, Ruemmler said she interacted with Epstein “in the ordinary course — casually, informally and sometimes irreverently” but insisted that many of their emails did not carry the meaning that has been attributed to them.
“Many of my emails with Epstein have been taken out of context or do not mean what some have speculated or suggested,” Ruemmler said in her statement to the committee.
Describing Epstein as “a masterful liar”, she said: “He clearly lied to me. I can see now that he used me and other respectable people to legitimise his standing.”
Ruemmler, a former White House counsel under President Barack Obama, joined Goldman Sachs in 2020 and has remained with the bank as a senior counsellor, helping executives identify her successor. Goldman Chief Executive Officer David Solomon has defended the decision to retain her in that role.
During her earlier career in private practice, Ruemmler frequently communicated with Epstein, advised him on legal and reputational matters and accepted gifts worth thousands of dollars from him, according to emails released by the government over the past year.
Some correspondence showed Ruemmler referring to Epstein by nicknames such as “Uncle Jeffrey” and questioning the credibility of some women who accused him of sexual offences.
Ahead of the closed-door hearing, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said lawmakers were particularly concerned about whether Ruemmler helped restore Epstein’s public image. He also highlighted her connections to Obama and her discussions with Epstein about the possibility of becoming the former president’s attorney general.
“She’s a very powerful person who was probably more involved in working with him to rehabilitate his image,” Comer told reporters, arguing that such actions may have made it harder for Epstein to face accountability.
Ruemmler told lawmakers that she interacted with Epstein because they shared a mutual client and said she had no knowledge of any “criminal conduct or misconduct” by him at the time. She added that, had she become aware of such behaviour, she would have immediately reported it to law enforcement.
She also said Epstein’s 2019 indictment exposed details about his activities that were not available to her during the period when she knew him.
“Many people assume that given everything we know now about Epstein, everyone who dealt with him before his 2019 indictment must have known everything then,” Ruemmler said. “In my case, that assumption is completely wrong.”
Ruemmler has faced criticism from senior lawmakers, including Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi. In June, they wrote to Goldman CEO David Solomon, arguing that retaining Ruemmler raised questions about his “professional judgement and fitness” to continue leading one of the world’s largest banks.
On Tuesday, the lawmakers sent another letter to Ruemmler and Solomon, calling Goldman’s earlier response “insufficient”. They sought further details about her new role, compensation package and involvement in selecting her successor.
A Goldman Sachs spokesperson declined to comment on the latest letter.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
E. Jean Carroll Receives $5.63 Million After Trump Ordered to Pay Damages in Sexual Abuse and Defamation Case
E.Jean Carroll has received nearly $5.63 million from US President Donald Trump after a jury in 2023 found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer, according to court records.
Despite Trump's objections, the money was released to Carroll's law firm on Monday, five days after US District Judge Lewis Kaplan authorised the disbursement from a court-supervised account.
The payment represents the original $5 million civil damages award, together with accrued interest.
It is the first time Trump has been required to pay Carroll. Over the past seven years, she has secured civil judgments totalling $88.3 million against the President after he repeatedly denied her allegation that he sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan around 1996.
Trump has consistently dismissed Carroll's allegations as a hoax, denied knowing her, claimed she fabricated the assault to promote her memoir, and described the legal proceedings as an example of "weaponisation" and "lawfare". Last month, the US Supreme Court declined to hear Trump's appeal against the $5 million verdict, allowing the judgment to stand.
Responding on Tuesday, a spokesperson for Trump's legal team repeated a statement issued after Judge Kaplan's ruling, saying: "The American people stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the witch hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll hoaxes."
Trump Warned of 'Irreparable Harm'
Last week, Trump's lawyer asked a federal appeals court to halt the release of the funds, arguing that the President would suffer "irreparable harm" if Carroll followed through on her stated intention to donate the money, as it would likely be impossible to recover the funds should Trump ultimately succeed on appeal.
The lawyer also argued that Carroll's assurance that she would instead place the money in an interest-bearing retirement account did not eliminate that risk, as she could still choose to dispose of the funds later.
The 2023 jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages over statements Trump made in 2022 denying her allegations. While jurors found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, they did not conclude that he had committed rape under the legal standard applied in the case.
In a separate case, another jury in 2024 ordered Trump to pay Carroll $83.3 million for defamatory statements he made in 2019 during his first term in the White House. Trump is expected to ask the Supreme Court to review that judgment.
Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, who is not related to Judge Kaplan, welcomed the payment, saying: "Three years ago, a unanimous nine-person jury found President Trump liable for sexually assaulting and defaming E. Jean Carroll. We are pleased to report that she has received the damages payment the jury awarded her."
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
US Judge Finds Abuse of Court in Trump IRS Case
A US judge on Monday ruled that President Donald Trump improperly used a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to secure personal benefits from the government he leads, preventing the terms of a controversial settlement agreement from taking legal effect.
Miami-based US District Judge Kathleen Williams delivered a scathing assessment of Trump's personal legal team and lawyers representing his administration, finding that the parties were not genuinely opposed to one another, as required in civil litigation. She referred Trump's lawyer in the case, Alejandro Brito, along with senior Justice Department officials who approved the settlement, to state bar authorities to determine whether their conduct breached legal ethics rules.
In her 56-page ruling, Williams concluded that lawyers representing both Trump and the Department of Justice (DOJ) and IRS had misused the legal process to provide legitimacy to actions designed to benefit the President and his allies.
"This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute," Williams wrote. Instead, she said, it was an attempt to "provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law."
The settlement, negotiated in May between Trump's personal lawyers and senior Justice Department officials, led to Trump withdrawing the lawsuit in exchange for sweeping tax protections and the creation of a fund worth nearly $1.8 billion for alleged victims of government "weaponisation". Critics argued that the arrangement would primarily benefit Trump's political allies.
Williams' order prevents any party to the case—including Trump, his adult sons and the Trump Organisation—from referring to the settlement or relying on any of its terms in future legal proceedings. The ruling could effectively invalidate the provision that sought to prevent the IRS from pursuing audits relating to Trump's previous tax matters or those of his businesses.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has already informed Congress that plans to establish the proposed "weaponisation" fund would not proceed. The fund had been intended to compensate individuals claiming to have been victims of "lawfare" and government "weaponisation"—terms Trump has frequently used to describe legal proceedings brought against him and his supporters. A federal judge in Virginia blocked the administration from establishing the fund last month.
Trump filed the lawsuit against the IRS in January, alleging that the agency had failed to prevent the disclosure of his tax records during his first term in office. He initially sought $10 billion in damages.
The proposed settlement drew widespread criticism, including from several Republican lawmakers, who accused the administration of self-dealing and attempting to channel taxpayer funds to political allies. Under pressure from Republican senators, Blanche agreed to abandon the proposed compensation fund while retaining the tax-related provisions of the agreement.
A spokesperson for Trump's legal team did not directly respond to the court's ruling but reiterated claims that the President's tax records had been unlawfully leaked, adding that Trump "continues to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable."
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The ruling comes just two days before Blanche, who previously served as Trump's personal lawyer, is due to appear before a Senate committee considering his nomination to become the permanent Attorney General. The IRS settlement is expected to feature prominently during the confirmation hearing.
Judge Williams launched an inquiry into the settlement after a group of former judges filed a legal brief accusing Trump and his administration of committing a "fraud on the court". Trump's lawyers argued that the judge no longer had jurisdiction because the lawsuit had already been voluntarily dismissed.
Although Williams declined to reopen the case, she ruled that Trump's lawyers and senior government officials should face potential sanctions. She also authorised outside groups that had filed briefs challenging the settlement to seek reimbursement of their legal costs.
Finally, the judge directed that copies of her order be sent to legal disciplinary authorities in New York, where Blanche is licensed to practise law, and in Washington, DC, where Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, the Justice Department's third-highest-ranking official, is admitted to the Bar.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Google Wins Dismissal of Lawsuit over Gemini Data-tracking Claims
Google has secured the dismissal of a consumer lawsuit accusing the technology giant of allowing its artificial intelligence platform, Gemini, to track users' communications without their knowledge or consent.
US District Judge Noel Wise, sitting in San Jose, ruled that the two Google users who filed the proposed class action last year had failed to demonstrate that Gemini had caused them any actual harm.
Judge Wise said the plaintiffs' claims that Gemini could potentially be used to track user data were insufficient to sustain the lawsuit.
"Most importantly, plaintiffs have not alleged that their own data has been impacted by Gemini tracking," the judge said in her ruling.
However, the court granted the plaintiffs 21 days to amend their complaint and refile the case.
Google and the plaintiffs' lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Google has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
The lawsuit alleged that Google violated users' privacy by enabling Gemini to track communications by default rather than requiring users to opt in. The complaint claimed that Google was using Gemini "to access and exploit" users' emails and other personal records.
"Google's deceptive and outrageous conduct violates its users' reasonable expectations of privacy," the lawsuit alleged.
In seeking dismissal, Google argued that the plaintiffs had failed to identify any specific instance in which their communications had been accessed or misused.
Judge Wise agreed that the complaint relied on broad assertions about the type of information that could be accessed through Google accounts rather than evidence of actual misuse.
"Plaintiffs have not observed their data being used by Gemini, for example, via targeted advertisements, personalised suggestions, or other changes in their services," the judge wrote.
The case is Thomas Thele et al v Google LLC, US District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 5:25-cv-09704-NW.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Uber Tightens Rider and Driver Agreements to Curb Third-Party Litigation Funding
Uber Technologies Inc. has introduced new contractual requirements aimed at discouraging lawsuits backed by third-party litigation funders by requiring customers and drivers who sue the company to disclose details of any such funding arrangements.
The requirement, included in contracts for drivers and within the Uber app's legal terms for customers, could make it more difficult for consumers and workers to secure external financial backing for claims against the company, according to Maria Glover, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law at Georgetown University.
"No rational funder is going to inject themselves into a case where they have to disclose basically their due diligence and their work product," Glover said. Company executives, she added, "want to cut off the avenues to going after them." Uber did not respond to requests for comment.
The move highlights the extent of corporate opposition to the rapidly expanding litigation funding industry, in which investors finance lawsuits in exchange for a share of any financial recovery. Uber and several other companies have supported efforts in Congress and state legislatures to restrict or prohibit the practice, arguing that it encourages excessive litigation.
In a letter sent to lawmakers last year, Uber and more than 50 other companies and organisations said proposed US legislation to tax profits from litigation investments "will help curb abusive lawsuits and level the playing field for American companies". The proposed legislation, however, has stalled in Congress.
Bloomberg Law obtained a copy of Uber's agreement with its drivers through court documents. The corresponding requirement for riders is available to registered users in the legal terms and conditions section of the Uber app.
The contractual language for drivers and riders is identical. It requires anyone bringing legal proceedings against Uber to disclose the identity of any litigation funder providing financial support for the claim. Claimants must also provide Uber with copies of any litigation funding agreements, and the requirement extends to any appointed arbitrator.
The agreement further states that users and drivers bringing claims against Uber waive attorney-client privilege and confidentiality protections for documents shared between themselves, their legal representatives and the litigation funder.
The language "is just an attempt to slow down claims being filed and actually adjudicated," said Shannon Liss-Riordan, a partner at labour law firm Lichten & Liss-Riordan, who has represented Uber drivers in previous cases but does not use litigation funding. "They try to make it as hard as possible for anyone to go forward with their claims."
Uber is "sending a very strong message" through the new provisions, Glover said. "When you're talking about wage and hour workers and/or sexual assault, that's pretty egregious."
Litigation Challenges
Uber continues to face thousands of lawsuits from passengers alleging sexual assault. In February, the company lost its first federal bellwether trial and was ordered to pay an $8.5 million jury award after a 19-year-old woman claimed she was raped by her driver in Arizona.
In June, Uber's board members and senior executives were sued over allegations that they failed to devote sufficient resources to customer safety and fostered a culture of regulatory non-compliance.
The company has also actively pushed back against broader legal challenges. In California, it supported a campaign asking voters to cap contingency fees for lawyers in motor accident cases at 25 per cent and limit certain medical payouts. Uber later reached a compromise with the plaintiffs' bar, agreeing instead to support legislation capping medical damages in motor accident cases involving medical liens for victims' treatment. The law also prohibits kickback arrangements between personal injury lawyers and medical providers.
Uber also provides partial backing to Protecting American Consumers Together, a non-profit advocacy group whose stated mission is to promote a fair and transparent legal system and protect consumers from what it describes as the "exploitative practices" of the personal injury industry.
The organisation has supported state-level legislation on tort reform and litigation funding, including a Georgia law signed by Governor Brian Kemp last year. The legislation allows litigation funding agreements to be disclosed during court proceedings and prohibits funders from directing the litigation they finance.
In June, the UK High Court ruled in a case involving Uber that litigation funders cannot claim litigation privilege over communications prepared to assess the commercial viability of a claim. Uber successfully sought disclosure of correspondence between the claimant's solicitors at Mishcon de Reya and Harbour Litigation Funding, with the High Court granting the application.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.