Trump’s power to sue US challenged in $10B IRS case
President Donald Trump has been given a deadline of next week to respond to claims that his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service poses a glaring conflict of interest.
To refine your search through our archives use our Advanced Search
President Donald Trump has been given a deadline of next week to respond to claims that his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service poses a glaring conflict of interest.
With limited legal authority, city and state officials have turned to the court of public opinion to deter private developers and the federal government.
A memo filed by the Department of Homeland Security ahead of a Thursday federal court hearing in Minnesota says refugees applying for green cards must return to federal custody one year after they were admitted to the U.S. for review of their applications.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Reid J. Cowan v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-1744
Criminal. Interlocutory appeal from the Grant Superior Court, Judge Nathan D. Meeks. Affirms the denial of Cowan’s motion challenging venue on a Level 4 felony child solicitation charge. Holds that Grant County is a proper venue under Indiana Code section 35-32-2-1(d) because Cowan’s alleged travel to Grant County to meet a person he believed to be a child constituted an act committed in furtherance of the charged offense. Rejects Cowan’s argument that the offense was complete at the time of the online communications and that travel was merely a sentencing enhancement, distinguishing prior case law decided before the legislature amended the statute to make travel an element of Level 4 felony child solicitation. Concludes that because travel is an element of the charged Level 4 offense, venue in Grant County is proper. Appellant’s attorneys: Michael C. Cunningham; Kelly N. Pyle. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.
The court’s opinion was issued days after Waltz lost an appeal of his federal prison sentence related to a 2016 campaign finance scandal.
Senators adopted two amendments that stripped out provisions dealing with qualified settlement offers and attorney fee awards — and instead created a tort reform task force.
Zuckerberg’s testimony is part of an unprecedented social media trial that questions whether Meta’s platforms deliberately addict and harm children.
Supporters frame as compassionate approach, while opponents say lack of resources could lead to jail time and fines.
The recall is tied to a January 2024 Clean Air Act settlement agreement between Cummins, the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board.
A rule finalized by the EPA last week revoked a 2009 government declaration known as the endangerment finding that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare.
Lorth Sim’s death marks the seventh this year and the first of an ICE detainee at Miami Correctional Facility.
Despite its strict restrictions for personal use, the newly amended version of Senate Bill 250 makes certain business-focused exceptions.
Indiana Court of Appeals
James Irwin Richter v. Neha Bhatnagar Richter
No. 25A-DC-1593
Civil. Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court, Special Judge Stephenie K. Gookins. Affirms the trial court’s order awarding Mother sole legal custody of the parties’ child, modifying Father’s child support obligation and authorizing the issuance of a passport for the child. Holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying legal custody from joint to sole where the record showed ongoing conflict, unilateral decision-making by Father and an inability to effectively co-parent, constituting a substantial and continuing change in circumstances rendering joint legal custody no longer in the child’s best interests. Further holds the trial court did not err in calculating Father’s weekly gross income for child support purposes based on his tax returns reflecting total annual income. Concludes the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that the child obtain a passport in light of his advancement to high school and opportunities for international immersion trips, finding a substantial change in circumstances and implementing safeguards through the parenting coordinator to address Father’s concerns. Appellant’s attorneys: Bryan L. Ciyou; Anne M. Lowe. Appellee’s attorney: Dyllan M. Kemp.
This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.
The groups behind the lawsuit said a federal campaign to review materials has escalated, leading to the removal of exhibits that discuss the history of slavery and enslaved people, civil rights, treatment of Indigenous peoples and climate science.
An Indiana bill that compels greater cooperation between local governments and federal immigration authorities could affect the state’s K-12 schools.
Supreme Court justices are required to recuse themselves from cases in which they own stock in a party in the case.
The lawsuit, filed in a Marion County court earlier this month, alleges the law firm lost out on millions of dollars of revenue after nearly half of its attorneys left.
Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of: A.B. and B.B. (Minor Children), E.B. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
No. 25A-JC-1315
Civil. Appeal from the Brown Circuit Court, Judge Mary Wertz. Affirms the adjudication of A.B. and B.B. as children in need of services. Holds that even if the trial court erred in denying Mother’s emergency motion to continue the fact-finding hearing based on one of her attorneys’ hospitalizations, Mother failed to establish prejudice warranting reversal, particularly where she was represented by two attorneys and did not show how the denial affected her ability to secure expert testimony or prepare her defense. Further holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the results of Stepfather’s unstipulated polygraph examination, reiterating that polygraph evidence is generally inadmissible absent a valid stipulation and rejecting Mother’s argument for a civil-case exception. Concludes that Mother did not demonstrate reversible error in either the denial of the continuance or the exclusion of the polygraph evidence. Appellant’s attorneys: Bryan L. Ciyou; Anne M. Lowe. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.
Indiana’s five supreme court justices reported involvement and interests ranging from stock holdings in Eli Lilly and Co. to gifted Indiana Pacers tickets and merchandise.
The Salvadoran national’s case has become a focal point in the immigration debate after he was mistakenly deported to his home country last year.