Happy New Year 2025

Tag: Court

Competing rulings on under 21 handgun sales could put issue before Supreme Court

The Supreme Court may soon weigh in on whether people younger than 21 have the right to buy handguns, a decision that could upend decades-old federal restrictions and reshape the nation’s gun laws.

In January, the right-leaning Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, struck down the federal government’s decades-old ban on handgun purchases for 18- to 20-year-olds. That decision came after the 10th Circuit upheld the same prohibition in November. Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is currently considering whether to uphold a Virginia district court judge’s decision ending the age-limit ban.

“Whenever there’s decisions that cross each other, you have a much better chance of getting a writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court,” Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told Fox News Digital.

FEDERAL COURT RULES AGE LIMITS ON HANDGUN SALES VIOLATE SECOND AMENDMENT

“This issue is definitely making its way to the Supreme Court—and fast,” said Pepperdine’s Jacob Charles, a constitutional law professor with an expertise in Second Amendment issues. “This is a key federal law, and you just can’t have that apply differently across the nation (at least for long).”

The federal ban on handgun sales to people younger than 21 began in 1968 as part of the Gun Control Act passed that year.

The federal ban on handgun sales to people under the age of 21 began in 1968 as part of the Gun Control Act passed that year. Fast-forward to the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, and a tranche of lawsuits aiming to upend laws restricting gun sales to people over 21 are making their way through the courts. The gun-violence nonprofit news outlet The Trace compiled data showing that between June 2022 and August 2024, there have been more than 1,600 Bruen-based challenges to gun laws.

The Bruen decision rejected the strict scrutiny frameworks being used by lower courts to evaluate gun laws and instead established a “historical tradition” that required laws to adhere more directly to the text of the Second Amendment.

“The levels of scrutiny – rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny – don’t matter. What the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling said was, you have to look at the text and the history. That’s what counts,” said Gottlieb. “When the Bill of Rights was put together, there was nothing that prohibited 18-to 20-year-old young adults from being able to own or carry a firearm.”

Handguns are displayed at the Taurus booth during the National Rifle Association annual convention in Indianapolis. (Photographer: Jon Cherry/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Gottlieb and the Second Amendment Foundation have sued in several states to reverse their bans on hand gun sales to young adults under 21.

Several cases challenging age limit bans, including cases filed in Massachusetts and Connecticut this month, are ongoing.

KYLE RITTENHOUSE RETURNS TO SPEAK AT UNIVERSITY WHERE ANGRY MOB LED TO CANCELED SPEECH

“Our track record, at least, is mostly wins, and part of the logic on that is that there’s nothing in under the Bruen decision at the Supreme Court, which makes them look at the text and history of the Second Amendment.”

A protester holds signs calling for an end to gun violence in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. (Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

The Fifth Circuit decision cited the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling in its decision not to uphold the federal ban, as did two other circuit courts over the last year.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

One case in the Eighth Circuit invalidated a ban in Minnesota. Since then, the Commissioner of Public Safety in Minnesota filed a petition for the Supreme Court to rule on the case. That petition is currently pending.

March 2, 2025
Circuit court puts final nail in the coffin for Biden’s $500M student loan forgiveness plan

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals put a final end to former President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan on Tuesday.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey originally sued the Biden administration over its $500 million effort to wipe away student loans, known as the SAVE plan. The court’s Tuesday ruling found that Biden’s secretary of education had “gone well beyond this authority by designing a plan where loans are largely forgiven rather than repaid.”

Bailey noted in a statement that the ruling has no active impact beyond blocking future presidents from attempting Biden’s maneuver.

“Though Joe Biden is out of office, this precedent is imperative to ensuring a President cannot force working Americans to foot the bill for someone else’s Ivy League debt,” Bailey said in a statement.

SENATE DEM IN KEY BATTLEGROUND RACE FLIP-FLOPPED ON STUDENT DEBT UNDER BIDEN: NO ‘MAGIC WAND’

Former President Joe Biden’s $500 million student loan forgiveness plan was smacked down for a final time in court on Tuesday. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Supreme Court of the United States denied the Biden administration’s request to lift a block on the SAVE plan last year. A federal appeals court in Missouri had earlier blocked the entire SAVE program from being enforced while litigation over the merits continues in the lower courts. The Department of Justice, which is part of the Biden administration, most recently asked the high court for emergency relief.

DEM STAFFER BLASTED FOR SPENDING HABITS AFTER GOING VIRAL FOR THANKING BIDEN FOR ERASING $8K STUDENT DEBT

The Biden administration argued the court went too far when it issued a nationwide injunction, which effectively put a temporary freeze on the SAVE plan.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed numerous successful lawsuits against Biden’s student loan forgiveness efforts. (Getty Images)

FEDERAL COURT BACKS MISSOURI AG MOTION TO BLOCK BIDEN’S ‘ILLEGAL’ STUDENT LOAN HANDOUT PLAN

“Our Administration will continue to aggressively defend the SAVE Plan – which has helped over 8 million borrowers access lower monthly payments, including 4.5 million borrowers who have had a zero dollar payment each month,” a White House spokesperson told Fox News Digital at the time. “And, we won’t stop fighting against Republican elected officials’ efforts to raise costs on millions of their own constituents’ student loan payments.”

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked multiple efforts by President Biden to forgive student loans nationwide. (AP Photo)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Biden introduced SAVE after the Supreme Court struck down his initial student loan forgiveness plan. The White House said that the SAVE plan could lower borrowers’ monthly payments to zero dollars, reduce monthly costs in half and save those who make payments at least $1,000 yearly. Additionally, borrowers with an original balance of $12,000 or less will receive forgiveness of any remaining balance after making 10 years of payments.

Fox News’ Greg Wehner contributed to this report.

Read the full 8th Circuit ruling here:

Anders Hagstrom is a reporter with Fox News Digital covering national politics and major breaking news events. Send tips to [email protected], or on Twitter: @Hagstrom_Anders.

February 18, 2025
DOGE scores big court win, allowed access data on 3 federal agencies

A federal judge in Washington on Friday handed Elon Musk’s government efficiency team a win by declining a request to temporarily block it from accessing sensitive data from at least three federal agencies.

Unions and nonprofits attempted to stop Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing records at the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

U.S. District Judge John Bates wrote in an opinion that the government was likely correct in categorizing DOGE as an agency, thereby allowing it to detail its staff to other government departments.

A federal judge in Washington on Friday handed Elon Musk’s government efficiency team a win by declining a request to temporarily block it from accessing sensitive data from at least three federal agencies. (AP Images)

LAWSUIT TRACKER: NEW RESISTANCE BATTLING TRUMP’S SECOND TERM THROUGH ONSLAUGHT OF LAWSUITS TAKING AIM AT EOS

However, Bates called his finding a “close question,” noting that the government did not want DOGE to be considered an agency for purposes of another federal law, which would subject it to open records requests.

Bates, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said DOGE was a “Goldilocks entity: not an agency when it is burdensome but an agency when it is convenient.”

“Plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency. If that is so, [DOGE] may detail its employees to other agencies consistent with the Economy Act,” he wrote in part.

The newly minted agency, a key promise of President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign, is aggressively slashing government waste when it comes to government spending. It was created via executive order and is a temporary organization within the White House that will spend 18 months carrying out its mission.

‘WASTEFUL AND DANGEROUS’: DOGE’S TOP FIVE MOST SHOCKING REVELATIONS

The Justice Department has argued that the DOGE personnel in question are “detailed” U.S. government employees who have access to the information under provisions of the Economy Act.

Musk hailed the decision by reposting the news on X with the caption: “LFG,” an abbreviation for “Let’s f—ing go.”

Judge Bates suggested earlier Friday that DOGE’s creation and its hierarchy were “odd,” noting that it “was created in a way to get it out of OMB [Office of Management and Budget] and instead answering to the chief of staff of the president.”

Demonstrators rally in support of federal workers outside the Department of Health and Human Services, Friday, Feb. 14, in Washington. (AP/Mark Schiefelbein)

DOGE “took great effort to avoid being an agency, but in this case, you’re an agency,” he said of DOGE. “It just seems to strain credulity.”

Attorneys for unions representing Labor Department employees argued during last week’s hearing that, absent court intervention, DOGE could access protected agency information, including the financial and medical records of millions of Americans, as well as employee safety and workplace complaints.

The plaintiffs noted that Labor Department systems contain sensitive information about investigations into Musk-owned companies Tesla and SpaceX, as well as information about trade secrets of competing companies, sparking concerns about Elon Musk’s possible access to the information.

Attorney Mark Samburg argued that allowing DOGE access to this information could have a “chilling effect” on new employees coming forward, due to fear of unlawful disclosure or retaliation.

“The sensitive information of millions of people is currently at imminent risk of unlawful disclosure,” Samburg said.

The plaintiffs had urged Judge Bates to grant a temporary request to block DOGE’s access to the information, which they said would “force the agency to implement a more thoughtful process.”

President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office. DOGE was created via executive order and is a temporary organization within the White House that will spend 18 months carrying out its mission. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Separately, on Friday, a federal judge extended a temporary order blocking DOGE from accessing payment systems within the Treasury Department.

That extension came after 19 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit claiming DOGE illegally accessed the Treasury Department’s central payment system at the Trump administration’s behest.

Fox News’ Brie Stimson and Reuters contributed to this report.

Michael Dorgan is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business.

You can send tips to [email protected] and follow him on Twitter @M_Dorgan.

February 15, 2025
Court blocks Biden admin’s airline fee transparency rule

Erin Witte, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America, explains why a federal court halted the airline junk fee transparency rule.

A rule that would have required the country’s biggest airlines to disclose any service fees – such as extra baggage charges or reservation change fees – was blocked by a federal appellate court, threatening its chances of taking effect.

The Department of Transportation (DOT), which argued that travelers were overpaying for their fares due to the so-called “junk fees,” claimed in a report that the rule would have saved consumers more than $500 million annually. In contrast, the trade group for the country’s largest airlines contended that there was nothing in the department’s findings that proved the rule would help consumers, even saying that it would interfere with airlines’ efforts to meet customer needs.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit didn’t side with either argument. Instead, it ruled that the DOT “failed to fully comply with the requirements” under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. The court still upheld the department’s right to impose such rules and instead sent the matter back to the DOT so airlines and others could comment on the cost savings that the department estimated would benefit passengers by making certain fees more transparent.

Under the Biden administration’s rule, airlines would be required to list out any fee associated with purchasing a ticket, otherwise known in the industry as “ancillary fees.” The DOT – then led by Pete Buttigieg – spent years fighting for this rule, claiming that airlines were pocketing billions of dollars from unexpected baggage, seating, change and cancelation fees. During Buttigieg’s tenure, the DOT issued more than $164 million in penalties against airlines for consumer protection violations.

EXPERT PUTS ONUS ON FAA FOR AMERICAN AIRLINES, HELICOPTER CRASH: ‘BAD MANAGEMENT’ IS ‘PUTTING US AT RISK’

Travelers gather with their luggage in the international terminal at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) ahead of the July 4th holiday travel period on June 25, 2024, in Los Angeles, California. (Mario Tama/Getty Images / Viral Press)

Airlines for America, the trade group representing major U.S. carriers such as American Airlines, JetBlue and Alaska Airlines, was pleased with the ruling, saying the court recognized that the department “relied on information which the public and airlines were never given an opportunity to evaluate or comment on.”

The group argued that a lawful comment process would have revealed that the rule would “interfere with airlines’ longstanding efforts to meet customers’ needs.” It also said the carriers invest in user-friendly websites and apps that offer transparent pricing and that this “rule embodies regulatory overreach that would confuse consumers who would be inundated with information that would only serve to complicate the buying process.”

Erin Witte, director of Consumer Protection for the Consumer Federation of America, said that this wasn’t a “total win” for the airline industry.

“What they were actually seeking was to completely undo the DOT’s authority to ever issue rules based on unfair and deceptive conduct,” Witte said. “And the Fifth Circuit actually drew the line and said, ‘No, we’re not going to go that far.’”

While the court’s action could end up being the catalyst for killing the rule, she said it’s important to note that the court didn’t permanently block the rule, either.

This means the current administration could implement a similar rule, as long as the department follows the proper procedure. However, Witte isn’t confident that will happen.

Ryan Bourne, an economist at the Cato Institute, told FOX Business that he doubts this matter will be a priority for President Donald Trump, who launched a massive deregulation initiative upon taking office. Bourne isn’t in favor of the move, saying the “rule was always unnecessary red tape.” He also agreed with the airlines that the rule would only confuse passengers.

BUDGET AIRLINE FLIGHT MAKES EMERGENCY STOP AFTER PILOT COLLAPSES: ‘ROUGH AND SCARY’

Travelers wait to board a Boeing 737 Max 8 plane operated by United Airlines at Newark Liberty International Airport in Newark, New Jersey, on March 13, 2024. (Bing Guan/Bloomberg via Getty Images / Getty Images)

“Most passengers are sufficiently familiar with booking flights and know you can pay extra fees for services like checking bags or having flights you can cancel anytime,” he said. “To require airlines to state total bundled prices for all these services upfront would be confusing to customers and harm competition by misrepresenting the opportunities for low-cost travel on budget airlines.”

Bill McGee, senior fellow for Aviation at the American Economic Liberties Project, strongly criticized the argument that this would overburden consumers, calling it one of the “weakest” arguments he has ever seen. McGee argued that if airlines can quickly implement fees – sometimes overnight – then they should also be able to inform customers about them.

“There’s sticker shock in the airlines . . . that’s what this is all about,” McGee said. “It’s a really very simple premise. . . . Before you book, you should know your bottom line total price. And the airlines fight tooth and nail against that.”

Passengers and flight attendants aboard a flight from LaGuardia Airport bound for Kansas City International Airport on May 4, 2022, in Queens, New York. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images / Getty Images)

Witte also questioned the pushback from the airlines, given that the rule didn’t talk about an all-out ban on junk fees, either.

“It didn’t even prohibit airlines from charging them. I think that voters probably would have supported that kind of rule,” she said. “All the rule did was say, tell people, tell them upfront, make it easier for them to figure out how much it will cost for them to fly from A to B and bring a bag.”

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

McGee still considers the ruling a “huge victory” as some people were concerned that the “court was going to say the DOT never had the authority to do this in the first place.”

February 14, 2025
Alabama AD suggests forfeits for home team if their fans storm court or field after big wins

University of Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne floated a possible idea on how to stop students and fans from storming the court after major wins.

Students and fans celebrate big wins, usually in football or basketball, by going onto the court or field to celebrate. At its most extreme, fans tear down goalposts and remove them from the field. There is also an ugly side in which fans and players get into a fracas as well.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

A fan runs onto the field after Tennessee defeated Alabama at Neyland Stadium in Knoxville, Tennessee, on Saturday, Oct. 19, 2024. (Caitie McMekin/News Sentinel / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images)

Byrne said there is a way to stop it altogether.

“I think from a safety standpoint, keeping people off the fields and courts is a good thing for everybody involved,” he told ESPN. “If we said that the home team, if they storm the field or the court, they’re going to lose the game right then and there, that will stop it.”

Byrne said he is OK with the criticism he is opening himself up to and is willing to listen to better ideas.

Right now, some conferences fine schools over the celebrations. The SEC has a fine structure for court and field storming. A school is fined $100,000 for the first incident, $250,000 for the second and $500,000 for the third.

COLLEGE FOOTBALL OFFENSIVE LINEMAN BEN CHRISTMAN, 21, FOUND DEAD IN HIS APARTMENT, SCHOOL SAYS

Oregon Ducks fans run on the field to celebrate their 32-31 win over Ohio State Buckeyes during the NCAA football game at Autzen Stadium in Eugene, Oregon, on Oct. 12, 2024. (Adam Cairns/Columbus Dispatch / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images)

“I think that’s a tough proposition,” SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey told ESPN of Byrne’s proposal. “I do think there’s more than Greg in this league who feel that way, though.”

In recent years, the storming has led to incidents with fans.

Former Alabama tight end Jermaine Burton struck a woman who was a fan of Tennessee after the Volunteers upset the Crimson Tide two years ago. Former Duke men’s basketball star Kyle Filipowski also got involved in a fracas with fans after the Blue Devils lost a game to Wake Forest.

Alabama athletic Greg Byrne makes his way through the crowd after an SEC conference game between Tennessee and Alabama in Neyland Stadium on Saturday, Oct. 19, 2024. (Brianna Paciorka/News Sentinel / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

College sports appear to still be grappling with how to handle the situation.

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Ryan Gaydos is a senior editor for Fox News Digital.

February 13, 2025
Judicial pushback against Trump agenda likely to go to Supreme Court, experts say

President Donald Trump’s agenda has been met with a wave of lawsuits since he took office in January, and legal experts say many of them will likely end up in the Supreme Court’s hands.

“President Trump is certainly being aggressive in terms of flexing executive power and not at all surprised that these are being challenged,” John Malcolm, vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital.

Trump kicked off his second term with a flurry of executive orders and directives that have since been the targets of a flood of legal challenges. Since Trump’s day 1, more than 40 lawsuits have been filed over the administration’s actions, including the president’s birthright citizenship order, immigration policies, federal funding freezes, federal employee buyouts, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and legal action against FBI and DOJ employees.

“Many of these cases may end up on the Supreme Court, but certainly the birthright citizenship,” Malcolm said. “If there ends up being a split among the courts, that issue will certainly be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS TRUMP ADMIN TO RESTORE PUBLIC HEALTH WEB PAGES

President Donald Trump’s agenda has been met with a wave of lawsuits since he took office in January, and legal experts say many of them will likely end up in the Supreme Court’s hands. (Getty Images)

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean at UC Berkeley School of Law, said Trump “has issued a myriad of orders violating the Constitution and federal laws” and noted that “Many already have been enjoined by the courts.”

“The crucial question is whether the president will defy these orders,” Chemerinsky told Fox News Digital.

“Almost without exception, throughout American history, presidents have complied with Supreme Court orders even when they strongly disagree with them.”

In one of the most recent developments, a Rhode Island federal judge ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze federal funds, claiming the administration did not adhere to a previous order to do so. The Trump administration appealed the order to the First Circuit shortly thereafter, which was ultimately denied.

AS DEMOCRATS REGROUP OUTSIDE DC, GOP ATTORNEYS GENERAL ADOPT NEW PLAYBOOK TO DEFEND TRUMP AGENDA

“Judges ordering the federal government to spend billions of dollars when the administration is saying that that is not in the best interests of the United States, I would expect that issue to be on a fast track to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Malcolm said.

Many of these lawsuits have been filed in historically left-leaning federal court jurisdictions, including Washington federal court and D.C. federal court. Various challenges have already been appealed to the appellate courts, including the Ninth and First Circuits, which notably hand down more progressive rulings. The Ninth Circuit, in particular, has a higher reversal rate than other circuit courts.

Despite the variety of ongoing legal challenges, Malcolm said he believes the Trump administration is on more solid footing when it comes to cases concerning firing political appointees. (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)

“Judge shopping is nothing new,” Malcolm said. “So I’m not at all surprised that these lawsuits challenging the Trump administration are being filed, for the most part, in the bluest of blue areas where the odds are high that the judge who’s going to be considering the issue has a liberal orientation.”

HOUSE DEMS ORGANIZE RAPID RESPONSE TASK FORCE AND LITIGATION GROUP TO COMBAT TRUMP AGENDA

“Almost without exception, throughout American history, presidents have complied with Supreme Court orders even when they strongly disagree with them,” Chemerinsky said. (AP Photo)

Despite the variety of ongoing legal challenges, Malcolm said he believes the Trump administration is on more solid footing when it comes to cases concerning firing political appointees. On Monday, Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden to lead the Office of Special Counsel, sued the Trump administration in D.C. federal court after he was fired on Friday.

Malcolm said Trump’s second term will continue to see a wave of litigation as he continues to implement his agenda, similar to his predecessors, including Biden.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Malcolm particularly noted the Biden administration’s efforts to redefine sex in Title IX as “gender identity.” A Kentucky federal judge blocked the Biden administration’s attempt in early January.

“There are a lot of these issues that end up coming up,” Malcolm said, looking back on Biden’s Title IX legal challenges. “And I suspect that the same sorts of issues will come up during the Trump administration, and they’ll be full employment for lawyers throughout his entire term.”

Haley Chi-Sing is a Writer for Fox News Digital. You can reach her at @haleychising on X.

February 13, 2025
High school trans athletes fighting Trump’s executive order protecting girls’ sports in court

The families of two transgender high school athletes in New Hampshire have added President Donald Trump’s administration to a lawsuit challenging laws that prevent the athletes from competing in girls’ sports.

The teenage plaintiffs, Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, originally filed the lawsuit last year to challenge a current New Hampshire state law prohibiting trans athletes from participating in girls’ sports. On Wednesday, a federal judge granted a request to add the Trump administration to the list of defendants over the president’s recent executive order.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

Trump signed the “No Men in Women’s Sports” executive order on Feb. 5, which prohibited any federal funding for educational institutions that allow biological males to compete on women’s or girls’ sports teams.

New Hampshire was already one of 25 states with a law in place to enforce similar bans on trans inclusion, but Tirrell and Turmelle have been allowed to compete on girls’ teams anyway, thanks to the ruling of a federal judge in their state.

“The systematic targeting of transgender people across American institutions is chilling, but targeting young people in schools, denying them support and essential opportunities during their most vulnerable years, is especially cruel,” Chris Erchull, a GLAD attorney, said.

The lawyers claimed Trump’s executive order, along with parts of a Jan. 20 executive order that forbids federal money from being used to “promote gender ideology,” subjects the teens and all transgender girls to discrimination in violation of federal equal protection guarantees and their rights under Title IX.

NYC OFFICIAL REMOVES POST SUPPORTING TRUMP’S TRANS ATHLETE ORDER AFTER ‘GUIDANCE’ FROM MAYOR’S CHIEF OF STAFF

The lawyers also claimed the executive orders unlawfully subject the teens’ schools to the threat of losing federal funding for allowing them to play sports.

The situation involving the two trans athletes has also prompted a second lawsuit after parents wore wristbands that read “XX” in reference to the biological female chromosomes, and were allegedly banned from school grounds for wearing them.

Plaintiffs Kyle Fellers and Anthony Foote sued the Bow School District after being banned from school grounds for wearing the wristbands at their daughters’ soccer game in September.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In the lawsuit filed by Fellers and Foote, they alleged they were told by school officials to remove the armbands or they would have to leave the game.

Both of the fathers say the intention of the armband was not to protest Tirrell, but to support their own daughters in a game that featured a biological male.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Jackson Thompson is a sports writer for Fox News Digital. He previously worked for ESPN and Business Insider. Jackson has covered the Super Bowl and NBA Finals, and has interviewed iconic figures Usain Bolt, Rob Gronkowski, Jerry Rice, Troy Aikman, Mike Trout, David Ortiz and Roger Clemens.

February 13, 2025
Court rules Vince McMahon’s lawyer wrongly withheld documents from grand jury

A former lawyer for pro-wrestling impresario Vince McMahon was wrong to withhold some documents from a federal grand jury as it investigated how the former WWE boss handled multimillion-dollar settlement agreements with two female employees who accused him of sexual abuse, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.

Three judges on the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court ruling that said the documents were not protected by attorney-client privilege because of an exception for “crime or fraud.”

The appeals court said the lower court judge found prosecutors had reasonable grounds to believe that McMahon and his lawyer illegally “circumvented” the WWE’s internal controls and created false records when they concealed the employees’ claims and settlement agreements from the company, and that they made false and misleading statements to the company’s auditors — even though McMahon paid the settlements with funds that did not come from the company.

The appellate panel said that while McMahon’s lawyer submitted many materials in response to a grand jury subpoena, they also submitted a log of 208 documents that were being withheld under assertions of attorney-client privilege.

Vince McMahon attends the WrestleMania 29 Press Conference at Radio City Music Hall on April 4, 2013 in New York City. (Eugene Gologursky/WireImage)

VINCE MCMAHON ACCUSER AGREES TO PAUSE SEXUAL ABUSE LAWSUIT AGAINST FORMER WWE BOSS

Though the identities of the parties were not disclosed in the appeals court opinion, a person familiar with the matter confirmed the unnamed “former Chief Executive Officer of a “publicly traded company” was McMahon. The person insisted on anonymity to discuss details that have not been made public.

The status of the grand jury investigation was not immediately clear. The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan has declined to comment when asked about the investigation, which it has not publicly disclosed.

Representatives for McMahon, who has denied wrongdoing, said they had no immediate comment on the court ruling. McMahon has previously suggested that he was no longer under investigation.

In January, McMahon said in a statement that “nearly three years of investigation by different governmental agencies” into his actions had ended. The statement came as the federal Securities and Exchange Commission announced it had settled charges against McMahon over his failure to disclose the settlement agreements with the two now-former employees to WWE officials.

“In the end, there was never anything more to this than minor accounting errors with regard to some personal payments that I made several years ago while I was CEO of WWE,” the statement said. “I’m thrilled that I can now put all this behind me.”

Apr 3, 2022; Arlington, TX, USA; Then-WWE owner Vince McMahon during WrestleMania at AT&T Stadium. (Joe Camporeale-USA TODAY Sports)

VINCE MCMAHON CALLS SEXUAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM ‘PURE FICTION’

The appeals court, however, said in Monday’s ruling that the case “concerns proceedings currently before a grand jury. At present, no indictments have been issued.”

The opinion disclosed some new details of the grand jury probe.

Representatives for one of the former employees who got a settlement agreement from McMahon, Janel Grant, declined to comment Monday.

McMahon resigned from WWE’s parent company in January 2024 after Grant filed a federal lawsuit accusing him and another former executive of serious sexual misconduct. At the time, McMahon stepped down from his position as executive chair of the board of directors at WWE’s parent company, TKO Group Holdings. He continued to deny wrongdoing following the filing of the lawsuit.

McMahon stepped down as WWE’s CEO in 2022 amid a company investigation into allegations that match those in the lawsuit.

Grant has said she was pressured into leaving her job with the WWE and signing a $3 million nondisclosure agreement.

Apr 3, 2022; Arlington, TX, USA; WWE owner Vince McMahon enters the arena during WrestleMania at AT&T Stadium. (Joe Camporeale-USA TODAY Sports)

VINCE MCMAHON CHASTISES UPCOMING NETFLIX DOCUSERIES AHEAD OF RELEASE, ALLEGES ‘EDITING TRICKS’ DISTORT STORY

The lawsuit, which alleges sexual battery and trafficking, also seeks to have the agreement declared invalid, saying McMahon breached the deal by giving her $1 million and failing to pay the rest.

The $3 million settlement is mentioned in Monday’s appellate court ruling, along with another $7.5 million settlement McMahon made with another former employee.

The Associated Press does not normally name people who make sexual assault allegations unless they come forward publicly, which Grant did.

Prosecutors served subpoenas on McMahon’s lawyer, who is unnamed in court documents, and the attorney’s firm in September 2023, seeking all communications between McMahon, his attorney and the law firm regarding the two former employees, according to the appellate court. The lawyer helped McMahon negotiate the settlements, the court said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

When the lawyer withheld some of the documents claiming attorney-client privilege, prosecutors asked the lower court to compel production of the records — leading to the appeal decided Monday.

The appellate judges wrote, “Because the settlement agreements resolving the Victims’ claims were ‘structured and negotiated … to keep them hidden from (the Company),’ the district court found that ’all communications about the claims and settlement agreements were made in furtherance of the criminal scheme to keep (the Company) and its auditors unaware of the allegations.’”

February 11, 2025
Federal appeals court dismisses classified records case against former Trump co-defendants

A federal appeals court dismissed the appeal charges brought against President Donald Trump aides Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira by former Special Counsel Jack Smith in his classified documents case, Fox News Digital has learned.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case against Nauta and De Oliveira on Tuesday morning, two weeks after the Justice Department moved to drop the charges.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FIRES MORE THAN A DOZEN KEY OFFICIALS ON FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH’S TEAM

Nauta, Trump’s valet, and De Oliveira, the property manager of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, had pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging they conspired to obstruct the FBI investigation into classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago.

The Justice Department had filed a motion in January to drop all criminal proceedings against Nauta and De Oliveira, putting an end to Smith’s probe more than two years after it began.

Waltine Nauta, left, takes a phone from Former President Donald Trump at a golf event in Virginia. (Alex Brandon/The Associated Press)

Former Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith, a former Justice Department official, as special counsel in November 2022.

Smith, a former assistant U.S. attorney and chief to the DOJ’s public integrity section, led the investigation into Trump’s retention of classified documents after leaving the White House and whether the former president obstructed the federal government’s investigation into the matter.

Carlos De Oliveira, center, an employee of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, arrives for a court appearance with attorney John Irving, at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building, in July 2023, in Miami. (Wilfredo Lee/The Associated Press)

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MOVES TO DROP PROSECUTION OF MAR-A-LAGO STAFF IN TRUMP CLASSIFIED DOCS CASE

Smith also was tasked with overseeing the investigation into whether Trump or other officials and entities interfered with the peaceful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election, including the certification of the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6, 2021.

Smith charged Trump in both cases, but Trump pleaded not guilty.

A federal appeals court dismissed the appeal charges brought against Waltine Nauta, Donald Trump’s valet, and Carlos De Oliveira, the property manager of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, pictured here. (Steve Helber/The Associated Press)

The classified records case was dismissed in July 2024 by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon, who ruled that Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel.

Smith charged Trump in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., in his 2020 election case, but after Trump was elected president, Smith sought to dismiss the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that request.

Both cases were dismissed.

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith led the investigation into Donald Trump’s retention of classified documents after leaving the White House. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Justice Department, in January, fired more than a dozen key officials who worked on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team prosecuting the president, after then-Acting Attorney General James McHenry said they could not be trusted in “faithfully implementing the president’s agenda.”

Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove has also directed acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll to identify agents involved in Jan. 6 prosecutions for internal review.

Brooke Singman is a political correspondent and reporter for Fox News Digital, Fox News Channel and FOX Business.

February 11, 2025
Court strikes down Biden-era rule push to make car pricing more transparent

Erin Witte, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America, on why the FTC was fighting for the CARS rule.

A federal appellate court vacated a rule last week that advocates argue would have made the car-buying process more transparent and saved consumers billions.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down the Combating Auto Retail Scams Trade Regulation – or CARS – rule before it could go into effect, arguing that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) failed to follow its own internal process.

The rule was aimed at fighting two common types of illegal tactics consumers face when buying a car, such as bait-and-switch tactics and hidden junk fees. But it also included provisions specifically protecting military members and their families from deceptive dealers falsely claiming military affiliation, along with addressing other issues unique to service members.

AUTOMOTIVE GROUPS REACT TO TRUMP TARIFFS ON IMPORTS FROM CANADA, MEXICO, CHINA

The FTC estimated in a report that the rule would save consumers more than $3.4 billion and cut down on the time it takes to buy a car by 72 million hours each year. Critics such as the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) – an American trade organization representing nearly 16,500 franchised dealers, and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA) – said the FTC’s research was “rushed” and “poorly researched.”

A used vehicle for sale at a dealership in Richmond, California, on Feb. 21, 2023. (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via / Getty Images)

A slew of changes would have taken effect if the rule had been implemented, including requiring car dealers to disclose the price of the car along with all mandatory fees up front every time they advertise the vehicle, according to Erin Witte, director of Consumer Protection for the Consumer Federation of America.

The FTC, which was granted authority to regulate unfair or deceptive practices by motor vehicle dealers under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, “discovered that throughout the process of buying a car, it is frequently riddled with deception and unfair practices” said Witte.

The price consumers see is “almost never” the price that they pay at the end of the day, said Witte, adding that it’s “remarkably common” for a dealership to tell consumers that they can’t tell them a price over the phone, and they should come in person to discuss what kind of deal they can offer.

Witte said it’s done intentionally to squeeze more out of consumers and that the tactics also rip customers away from “honest car dealers.”

ANGRY CUSTOMER CRASHES RECENTLY PURCHASED SUBARU THROUGH DOORS AT DEALERSHIP

“Not every car dealer wants to gouge people,” she said. “There are lots of car dealers that want to honestly advertise the price of their car, but they lose out if someone’s advertising the same car for a cheaper price. But they can track someone on their lot for four hours and then jack up the price because they’re there.”

Vehicles for sale at a Chrysler dealership in Richmond, California, on Feb. 21, 2023. (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via / Getty Images)

New Jersey car dealership owner Tom Maoli told FOX Business that he was an advocate for the CARS rule because it would have increased consumer confidence in buying cars from franchise car dealerships. Historically, they have “bad view of how they are treated at car dealerships across the country,” said Maoli, whose company Celebrity Motor Car Company runs six dealerships.

Conversely, NADA and TADA argued that the new rule would have “added massive amounts of time, complexity, paperwork and cost to the car-buying and car-shopping experience for virtually every customer.” The industry groups also said it “would have been a nightmare for consumers and dealers alike.”

NADA said consumers would have spent an additional 60 to 80 minutes at the dealership for every transaction, and would have been subject to having to complete at least five new, untested forms during both the shopping and the purchasing process. This “would have driven up costs for vehicle purchases and, beyond that, would have cost consumers $1.3 billion a year collectively in lost time,” the trade group said in a statement to FOX Business.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

The court didn’t take sides for or against the rule. Instead, it ruled that the FTC skipped an important part of the notice-and-comment process called the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). In this initial step, the agency formally requests public input on a proposed regulation. It argued the FTC should have stated that it was considering issuing a rule about car dealers and these practices and left a discussion open for public feedback.

Instead, the FTC started at the second phase, called Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), where they outline their plan to change a rule and then open it up for public comment before finalizing it.

Used vehicles for sale at a dealership in Colma, California, on Feb. 21, 2023. (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via / Getty Images)

Witte argued that the FTC should have been allowed to skip this step since it was given the authority to fast track rulemaking for motor vehicle dealers.

“It also is frankly ridiculous to think that the FTC didn’t do their homework on this to understand the impact of the rule,” Witte said. “This was a decade in the making. The FTC relied on many, many enforcement actions, conversations with car dealers, with NADA, with consumer advocates and with actual consumers. They paid attention to what people were actually telling them about their experiences.”

The FTC has to start this process over again if it wants to finalize the rule. It remains to be seen if that will occur, Witte said.

February 10, 2025