A Florida judge has ordered the state’s Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to produce documents related to its determination that gender-affirming health care cannot be covered under Medicaid because treatments are “experimental and investigational.”

Attorneys for AHCA — the agency that controls most of the state’s Medicaid program — will have until Feb. 14 to hand over documents they have previously argued are protected under attorney-client privilege and work-product privilege.

Those include exchanges between agency officials and “any person” involved in the creation of a June AHCA report that determined available medical literature provides “insufficient evidence” that puberty blockers, hormones and gender-affirming surgeries are safe and effective treatments for gender dysphoria.

The report has been used to bar an estimated 9,000 transgender Floridians from using Medicaid to help pay for gender-affirming health care and was cited during a November meeting between the state’s medical boards that resulted in a vote to adopt a rule that prevents minors in Florida from accessing gender-affirming treatments.

Gender-affirming health care for youths and adults has been deemed safe and medically necessary by most professional medical organizations.

In a six-page order published Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle said AHCA must produce, among other documents, its communications with experts that were used to inform the agency’s June report on gender-affirming health care and the ensuing rule that excluded treatments from Medicaid.

Lawyers for the agency have said that while the desired documents were created for rulemaking purposes, they were also intended for use in litigation they knew would follow the adoption of the rule, making them protected documents by law.

Hinkle said he disagreed.

“Even if this leaves room in an appropriate circumstance for protection of documents created for dual purposes — not just when the primary purpose was to aid in future litigation — the experts at issue here were an essential part of the mandated rulemaking process,” he wrote in the order, which is part of an ongoing lawsuit challenging Florida’s Medicaid exclusion.

Hinkle continued: “Either the experts were retained to assist in an honest evaluative process—in which event their communications were not within work-product protection — or the rulemaking process was a sham and the real goal was to prevail in the anticipated litigation — a possibility the defendants could embrace to win the discovery battle only by acknowledging that the rulemaking process was fatally flawed, or nearly so.”

Court documents filed earlier this month suggest the state’s rulemaking process was just that, with an AHCA employee alleging that the June report “does not present an honest and accurate assessment” of medical evidence and practice guidelines related to gender-affirming health care.

Attorneys for AHCA must file a revised log of protected documents by Feb. 2, according to Hinkle’s order. The plaintiffs in the case — two transgender minors and two transgender adults in their 20s — may file an additional motion to compel if they believe the protected documents are being “improperly withheld.”

A district judge granted a request from the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Wednesday to block FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried from contacting current and former employees and using encrypted messaging apps as conditions of his release.

New York District Judge Lewis Kaplan set a hearing for next Tuesday to discuss the terms of Bankman-Fried's release, but agreed to DOJ’s conditions in the meantime.

Damian Williams, the U.S. attorney for the Southern Distirct of New York, had asked the court to update Bankman-Fried’s bail conditions on Friday amid concerns about witness tampering. 

The former head of the crypto trading platform reportedly contacted an individual last month with “firsthand knowledge” about his actions during the November 2022 collapse of FTX, someone who could potentially serve as a government witness at trial. He also reached out to several other current and former FTX employees.

In his message to the potential witness, Bankman-Fried suggested that they “use each other as resources when possible, or at least vet things with each other,” which Williams argued appeared to be an effort to influence the individual’s future testimony.

As a result, Williams asked the court to bar Bankman-Fried from contacting current and former employees at both FTX and his hedge fund Alameda Research. 

Judge Kaplan also granted Williams’s request to block the FTX founder from using encrypted or ephemeral messaging and calling platforms.

Bankman-Fried used both email and the encrypted messaging platform Signal to contact the potential witness and has a history of using automatic deletion functions on platforms like Signal and Slack, according to the attorney.

A Trump Organization executive is expected to testify before a grand jury in Manhattan that is investigating former President Trump's role in hush-money payments paid to adult-film star Stormy Daniels right before the 2016 election, CNN reported.

Jeffrey McConney, the controller of the Trump Organization, is expected to appear before the grand jury as Manhattan District Attorney ramps up his criminal investigation into Trump. The New York Times reported that District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) is escalating the investigation through giving the grand jury evidence about hush money paid to Daniels in 2016.

Bragg spokeswoman Danielle Filson declined to comment on or confirm whether McConney will appear.

According to the Times, Bragg is also seeking to interview former employees of The National Enquirer, which helped make the deal with Daniels. David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, was seen with his lawyer walking into the building that the grand jury is in, the Times reported.

These new developments in the Manhattan prosecutors' investigation come after the Trump Organization was found guilty of tax fraud in December. Testimonies from McConney and former Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty to tax evasion as part of a deal with prosecutors in August, helped the prosecutors back up the case that led to the conviction.

Shortly after the conviction in December, Bragg reiterated that the investigation was "ongoing" and that the case was “one chapter in the book” for his team’s investigation. 

Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen said on Wednesday that he turned over his cellphones to the Manhattan prosecutors that included text messages, emails and voice messages he exchanged with Keith Davidson, former attorney to Daniels. He said the contents will help serve as evidence if the prosecutors move forward in the case, which he suspected they will.

Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges in 2018, including one count of making an excessive campaign contribution on Oct. 27, 2016, the same date that Cohen paid Daniels in a nondisclosure agreement over an affair Daniels alleges she had with Trump. Trump denies that the affair happened.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a New Jersey law that allowed the state to sue gun manufacturers for creating a “public nuisance” with their sale and marketing of firearms. 

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signed the law in June to create a path for suing companies engaged in the sale, manufacture, distribution, importing or marketing of a gun-related products for a public nuisance, defined as conduct that interferes with the public’s rights. 

It also allows liability for gun industry members who fail to “establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls” on those products. 

But U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi ruled Tuesday that the law violates the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a federal law that states that civil actions cannot be brought against a gun manufacturer or seller for injuries that result from the “misuse” of a firearm or related product by a third party. 

The law includes six exceptions, but Quraishi did not immediately find that any of them apply, leading to the preliminary injunction. 

Quraishi said the state law is in “direct conflict” with the federal law’s purpose, also citing concerns about whether the state law is constitutional, though he did not address those questions in the ruling. 

The complaint over the law was filed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a nonprofit trade association for the hunting and shooting sport industry. 

The ruling comes a day after another federal judge temporarily blocked a New Jersey law that banned firearms at casinos, parks and beaches. That judge also blocked parts of that law that prohibited firearms from being carried at sensitive places like libraries, museums, bars and restaurants where alcohol is sold earlier this month. 

Other states like California have also approved legislation allowing gun manufacturers to be sued if a firearm they sell is used to cause harm. 

Lawrence Keane, a senior vice president for government and public affairs at NSSF, told Politico in an interview that the ruling is important because other states are considering legislation based on the laws in New Jersey and California. He said the organization will file a lawsuit in the coming months to challenge the California law. 

“Today’s decision will be impactful in giving other state legislatures pause before they enact an unconstitutional law,” Keane said. 

The Hill has reached out to a spokesperson for Murphy’s office for comment.

A coalition of nine Republican-led states on Tuesday asked a federal court in Texas to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which shields so-called "Dreamers" from deportation.

The DACA program was implemented under the Obama administration in 2012 as a way to protect undocumented immigrants who were brought into the U.S. as children. Since its inception, it has faced regular legal challenges from conservative groups and states.

This coalition, which is led by Texas, is calling on the Southern District federal court to declare DACA "unlawful" and "unconstitutional," according to court documents filed on Tuesday. The filings state that DACA should be prevented from accepting any new applicants and, in two years, prevented from approving renewal requests from existing Dreamers.

The Southern District court, at the request of the same group of states, had previously blocked new applications for the program, ruling that “with the creation of DACA and its continued operation,” the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

However, the judge in question, Andrew Hanen, still allowed for current Dreamers to renew their status in the 2021 ruling.

Hanen's ruling at the time was based largely on the fact that the DACA program was created by a memo under the Obama administration and that it was not a formal rule. In August, DHS issued a final regulation to replace the memo and codify the DACA program and allow new applicants starting last October.

The group of states has now asked Hanen to review the Biden administration's new regulation, claiming that this new move is also unlawful due to the same reason's the initial memo was.

"The Final Rule—as the latest manifestation of the DACA program—is substantively unlawful for the same reasons as the DACA Memorandum. The Court should declare it unlawful and unconstitutional, vacate it in its entirety, and permanently enjoin its implementation (with a prudent transition for existing DACA recipients)" the filing concludes.

As of September, there are nearly 600,000 active DACA recipients whose benefits could be at risk if the program is struck down, according to federal data.

An anonymous Republican campaign staffer filed a defamation lawsuit against GOP fundraiser Caroline Wren on Tuesday over tweets she issued attacking his suit against Matt Schlapp.

The staffer, who worked on Herschel Walker’s (R) Senate campaign in Georgia, is accusing Schlapp, the chairman of the American Conservative Union, of sexual assault in another anonymous lawsuit filed earlier this month. Schlapp denies the allegations.

Wren, a long-time GOP fundraiser who helped plan former President Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021 Ellipse rally and recently advised defeated Republican Arizona gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake, issued a series of tweets in the days following, attacking the anonymous staffer and media coverage of the suit.

In one tweet, Wren said the staffer was a 39-year-old volunteer driver and he “had been fired from multiple campaigns for lying and unethical behavior.”

“Both statements are false, and the latter statement is false and defamatory,” the staffer’s attorneys wrote in the complaint, which was filed in Washington, D.C.'s federal trial court.

One day after the tweet, the attorneys sent a letter to Wren on Jan. 12 demanding she retract it. 

But the complaint states that Wren went on to issue additional tweets attacking the staffer’s lawsuit after receiving the letter. 

The lawsuit seeks at least $500,000 in damages, claiming Wren’s tweets have caused the staffer distress and reputational harm.

Wren did not immediately respond to a text message seeking comment.

Her tweets sought to defend Schlapp and his wife, Mercedes Schlapp, a former Trump White House staffer. Both were named as defendants in the staffer’s earlier lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that Schlapp was “aggressively fondling” the staffer’s groin while the two drove back from a restaurant to a hotel during a campaign stop on Oct. 19. 

Charlie Spies, an attorney for Schlapps, denied the assault allegation in a previous statement, saying that “the Schlapp family is suffering unbearable pain and stress due to the false allegation from an anonymous individual."

He added that the complaint’s anonymity demonstrates that the accuser’s agenda is to harm the Schlapp family and suggested the couple is considering a counter-claim.

The staffer's suit claims that special circumstances exist for him to remain anonymous, citing that the Schlapps are “revered” by some people who have demonstrated a “proclivity” for threatening those with whom they disagree.

Matt Schlapp's organization, the American Conservative Union, is perhaps most well known for hosting the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). This year's CPAC is scheduled for early next month.

A former colleague of Chief Justice John Roberts’s wife raised ethics concerns last month about how the Supreme Court’s business intersects with her recruiting work, according to documents obtained by The Hill.

Kendal Price — who previously worked with Jane Roberts at Major, Lindsey & Africa — alleged the chief justice may have violated recusal and financial disclosure rules for judges in a letter to the Justice Department and House and Senate Judiciary Committee leaders on Dec. 5, The New York Times and Politico reported.

The letter adds to the growing scrutiny surrounding the justices’ spouses, which comes as increasing numbers of Americans believe the court is acting politically.

Jane Roberts for years has worked in the legal recruiting business, placing a number of high-ranking public officials in the private sector. She reportedly guided the moves of Robert Bennett, who represented former President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, to Hogan Lovells and former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to WilmerHale.

Price’s letter delves into Roberts’s compensation and whether her husband properly recused himself in some cases, according to the Times and Politico.

The letter in part lists Supreme Court cases related to the WilmerHale firm since 2012. A WilmerHale spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

In 2019, Roberts said she handles potential conflicts on a case-by-case basis and avoids matters with any connection to her husband’s role. Roberts said she did not work with those with ongoing business before the Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Jane Roberts and Macrae, a boutique legal recruiting firm where she now works, also did not return requests for comment.

“It is respectfully requested that the Department of Justice and the Congress initiate investigations into the conduct outlined and corroborated in the attached Exhibits,” Joshua Dratel, Price’s attorney, told the lawmakers.

Price, who was fired from Major, Lindsey & Africa in 2013, sued the firm in Massachusetts state court in proceedings that eventually moved into arbitration. 

Price named Jane Roberts as a defendant in the case, and the letter includes a transcript of sworn testimony she gave in arbitration proceedings.

When reached for comment, Price in a statement tied the sending of the letter to the historically low public support in the Supreme Court.

“We must take seriously the loss of faith in the highest court of America, a country of laws, not people (and especially powerful people),” Price said. “Repairing that could not be a more important task, and it is the reason I believed it was the right time to come forward with this evidence.”

A number of the justices’ spouses have received growing scrutiny in recent months as trust plummeted.

Justice Clarence Thomas has faced condemnations from many Democrats over his wife’s support for overturning the 2020 election and Thomas’s participation in cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.  

Months after the extraordinary leak of the high court’s draft majority opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade, a former anti-abortion leaker alleged that Justice Samuel Alito or his wife disclosed the decision in a 2014 high-profile decision about contraception and religious freedom. Alito has publicly denied the claim, and The Hill has not corroborated the allegation.

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) plans to seek court sanctions against former President Trump in her civil fraud lawsuit, her office told a state judge on Tuesday.

James’s office said formal answers to her $250 million lawsuit filed by Trump, his three oldest children and the family’s businesses last week were “deficient in a host of ways” and merit sanctions for them and their attorneys.

“Defendants falsely deny facts they have admitted in other proceedings, they deny knowledge sufficient to respond to factual allegations that are plainly within their knowledge, and they propound affirmative defenses that have been repeatedly rejected by this Court as frivolous and without merit,” Kevin Wallace, senior enforcement counsel in James’s office, wrote.

Wallace asked New York Judge Arthur Engoron for a meeting as soon as possible to set a briefing schedule for the sanctions motion.

James filed the lawsuit in September alleging the former president and his businesses for years manipulated property values for investment and loan benefits, the culmination of her multi-year investigation.

She named the former president, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump and a number of the family’s business entities as defendants and asked for $250 million in financial penalties.

Engoron earlier this month denied the Trumps’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit, requiring them to formally answer the complaint so the proceedings can move forward.

The family filed their answers on Thursday, largely rejecting James’s allegations.

In Tuesday’s letter, Wallace contended they included false denials and ones that didn’t actually respond to the allegations.

Wallace in particular pushed back on how the Trumps repeatedly answered many allegations by taking issue with how James attributed them to the “Trump Organization.” The Trumps said no such legal entity exists, so James failed to properly specify who committed the conduct. 

“It does not directly respond to the allegations in the Verified Complaint, and instead operates as a deflection that the Defendants use to avoid answering direct factual allegations,” Wallace responded.

The lawsuit is scheduled to head to trial in October.

The Hill has reached out to attorneys for the former president, his three children named in the suit and their businesses for comment.

A federal judge in Florida sanctioned the former president and his legal team more than $900,000 earlier this month for his case against Hillary Clinton. He issued a scathing opinion that described the lawsuit as “frivolous” and part of “a continuing pattern of misuse of the courts.”

In the days following, Trump dropped two lawsuits that he had filed against James. One sought to stop her civil investigation that ultimately sparked the fraud case, and the other looked to block James’s access to Trump’s personal trust as part of her case.

Trump’s battle with James is one of many sprawling legal fights involving the former president, which comes as he begins his 2024 campaign for the White House.

Manhattan’s district attorney is probing Trump for hush money his fixer paid to an adult-film star just before the 2016 presidential election and his family’s business practices.

Trump also faces federal investigations into the mishandling of records at Mar-a-Lago and efforts to block the 2020 transition of power. The Fulton County, Ga., district attorney is investigating Trump’s attempts to overturn Georgia’s 2020 presidential election result.

Former President Trump is suing journalist Bob Woodward over interview recordings that Trump alleges he didn’t agree could be included in an audiobook. 

Trump concedes that he consented to Woodward recording their conversations for the purpose of a book, and gave 19 interviews to the veteran journalist in 2019 and 2020, which Woodward included in his 2020 book “Rage.”

But the former president is arguing the agreement doesn’t cover the inclusion of those audio files in “The Trump Tapes,” an audiobook collection of the recordings published by Simon & Schuster Inc. last year. 

The lawsuit, filed in Pensacola division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, names Simon & Schuster Inc. and its parent company Paramount Global as defendants along with Woodward. It seeks more than $49 million in damages.

“This case centers on Mr. Woodward’s systematic usurpation, manipulation, and exploitation of audio of President Trump gathered in connection with a series of interviews conducted by Mr. Woodward,” Trump’s team argues in the filing.

“The Defendants’ ongoing concerted efforts to profit off the protected audio recordings and the works they have distributed derived from the protected audio recordings have caused President Trump to sustain substantial damage,” the suit continues.

Trump’s team is pursuing a number of counts against the defendants, including unjust enrichment, violation of Florida trade law and breach of contract. At one point, the filing also alleges that the audiobook misrepresented one of the pair’s interviews through editing. 

Trump, a Florida resident, has typically fought his legal battles in the state’s Southern District, but is filing this suit in the Northern District. 

The Hill has reached out to Simon & Schuster for comment.

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked New Jersey’s firearm bans at casinos, parks and beaches, the latest setback for the state’s new gun law.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb, a George W. Bush appointee, augments her opinion earlier this month temporarily blocking enforcement at other so-called sensitive places where state lawmakers banned firearms.

Gun rights advocates filed the two legal challenges within hours of Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signing the law on Dec. 22, setting up one of multiple legal battles nationwide that are parsing the Supreme Court’s landmark gun ruling last summer.

The high court’s conservative majority in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen noted that states can ban firearms in sensitive places, but they ruled any law must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Firearm bans at 19 of the 25 categories that lawmakers deemed sensitive places, including child care facilities and film studios, remain in effect. The law also includes a host of other types of gun regulations that remain enforceable.

In her two rulings, Bumb said the groups were likely to succeed on some of their claims that parts of New Jersey's law does not comply with the Bruen ruling.

Responding to the first group's challenge, Bumb paused gun bans in libraries; museums; bars and restaurants where alcohol is sold; entertainment facilities; and private property when the owner doesn’t provide express consent.

Monday’s order grants a request from the second group — New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and seven of its members — to expand the pause to casinos as well as state-owned parks and beaches.

State lawmakers had banned firearms in all of those locations through the new law, but Bumb also on Monday paused the state’s existing regulations that already largely banned firearms in casinos and state parks.

Bumb also granted a motion for the leaders of New Jersey’s two legislative chambers, both of which are led by Democrats, to intervene and defend the law from the two challenges, which will be heard together in future proceedings.

“We are disappointed that the court has undermined important and longstanding protections against firearms violence in our public parks and in casinos,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin (D) said in a statement.

“Today’s order is bad for public safety and inconsistent with the Second Amendment. But these orders remain temporary, and we look forward to pressing our case, including ultimately on appeal,” he added.

The International Association of Fire Fighters called on Monday for the elimination of protective gear that contains “forever chemicals,” saying swift regulatory action is needed to address the toxic substances. 

The union — which has more than 333,000 members — announced that it has retained the services of three nationally recognized law firms to pursue these goals, and to help members and their families seek compensation for related illnesses.

The toxins in question — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — are known for their presence in both jet fuel firefighting foam and the gear warn by firefighters and rescue works. They are also common in a variety of household items, such as nonstick pans, cosmetics and waterproof apparel.

These cancer-linked compounds are notorious for their ability to linger in the human body and the environment.

“We need to combat what is killing us,” Edward Kelly, general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, said in a statement.

“Cancer is the number one killer of firefighters, and for years, corporate interests have put profits over our lives,” he continued. “It stops now. This initiative will accelerate our search for PFAS-free gear.”

Kelly announced the selection of Motley Rice LLC; Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC; and Sullivan Papain Block McGrath Coffinas & Cannavo P.C. at a training summit in Las Vegas on Monday. The firms will be working to change the regulatory standards and systems that the union says have enabled toxins in firefighter protective turnout gear, he said.

They will also demand that all turnout gear be replaced with PFAS-free alternatives, according to Kelly.

Meanwhile, the law firms will be available for those members and their families looking to seek compensation for PFAS-related injuries.

“This is the challenge of our generation — and I refuse to let it become a challenge for our children and their children,” Kelly said.

At the Las Vegas training meeting on Monday, the International Association of Fire Fighters also hosted the world premiere screening of "Burned," a documentary produced by actor Mark Ruffalo.

Ruffalo has long been championing the fight against forever chemicals, having previously portrayed attorney Rob Bilott — known for representing PFAS contamination victims in West Virginia, against manufacturer DuPont — in the 2019 film "Dark Waters."

The short film "Burned" tells the story of how the spouse of a Massachusetts firefighter identified significant exposure to forever chemicals in turnout gear following her husband’s cancer diagnosis.

“As he began to slip further and further away from me, I just had to find out why, how this happens to somebody so healthy,” Diane Cotter says in the film of her husband Paul.

After much research, Cotter said she began to “put two and two together” and understand that the PFAS in Paul's degrading turnout gear could have been putting him at risk.

“It’s always passed off as a given — ‘Well, you’re going to get cancer.’ People accept it,” Paul Cotter says in the movie. 

Diane Cotter eventually sent samples of the gear to Graham Peaslee of the University of Notre Dame, who was able to test the items for PFAS content.

“The gear did have these chemicals, and it had it in staggering amounts,” she said.

Addressing firefighters directly, Ruffalo stressed in the film how their “protective wear is also awash in these forever chemicals — both on the outside and the inside because of their water-repellant qualities.”

“It's not fair that you are literally encapsulated in these chemicals every single day, every moment you do your job,” he added.

The Manhattan district attorney is escalating his criminal investigation into former President Trump by showing a grand jury evidence about hush money paid to an adult-film star just before the 2016 presidential election, The New York Times reported.

The Times reported that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) will begin presenting the evidence on Monday and noted it as a clear sign he is nearing a decision about whether to bring criminal charges against the former president.

Bragg’s office began a criminal investigation into Trump and his businesses under Bragg’s predecessor, Cy Vance Jr., that involved the hush money payments and whether Trump's businesses misled lenders and investors about the value of the companies' properties.

The $130,000 payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, sent days before Trump was elected, was made as part of a nondisclosure agreement over an affair Daniels alleges she had with the former president. Trump denies the affair.

Trump's longtime fixer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty in 2018 to making an excessive campaign contribution and said he did so at the direction of “a candidate for federal office.”  

The Times reported that the case could hinge on prosecutors showing that Trump and his company falsified records to hide the hush money payment from voters in advance of the election.

Bragg is now hoping to reconstruct the events surrounding the payment by seeking interviews with former employees at The National Enquirer, which helped broker the deal with Daniels, according to The Times.

The newspaper reported that former publisher David Pecker was seen entering the building in Manhattan where the grand jury is sitting.

Bragg spokeswoman Danielle Filson declined to comment. Elkan Abramowitz, an attorney for Pecker, and Ronald Fischetti, an attorney for Trump, did not immediately return requests for comment.

The purported escalation is one of the multiple sprawling legal inquiries involving the former president, who over the weekend made some of his first campaign stops in his bid to return to the White House. 

Trump also faces probes centered on his actions in Georgia following the 2020 election, his handling of classified documents and a civil fraud lawsuit launched by New York’s attorney general.

In Bragg’s probe, two top prosecutors resigned February after Bragg reportedly decided to stop presenting evidence to an earlier special grand jury.

Bragg has since indicated the investigation is “active and ongoing,” and the decision to show evidence to the new grand jury suggests he is still considering indicting the former president.

But Bragg’s investigation has so far led to only one trial, which was focused on whether the Trump Organization aided top executives in avoiding income taxes on nonmonetary compensation.

Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s former chief financial officer, pleaded guilty to 15 charges but Trump himself was not charged.

An unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate who ran to replace former Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) after he joined the Trump White House will plead guilty to accepting an illegal campaign contribution, according to court filings.

Federal prosecutors on Friday charged Lynda Bennett for knowingly accepting a $25,000 campaign contribution from a relative that was made in someone else’s name. A court filing on Monday indicated Bennett agreed to plead guilty. 

Bennett, a real estate agent and GOP activist, ultimately lost the race to Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) despite receiving endorsements from Meadows and former President Trump in her 2020 primary.

Many details of the purportedly illegal contribution remain unclear. Prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper to set a hearing for her to formally enter the plea.

Federal campaign finance laws prohibited individual contributions that exceeded $2,800 for the 2020 primary cycle or $2,800 for that year’s general election cycle.

The Hill has reached out to Bennett for comment.

Meadows’s wife, Debbie Meadows, was close with Bennett and reportedly encouraged the former president to endorse her in the primary.

Cawthorn ultimately beat Bennett by about 32 percentage points, or 15,000 votes.

A federal judge sentenced a man to 80 months in prison for using pepper spray during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot against officer Brian Sicknick, who died hours later of natural causes.

Dozens of Sicknick’s former colleagues gathered in D.C.’s federal courthouse on Friday as U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan handed down Julian Khater’s sentence.

Khater pleaded guilty to two counts of assaulting law enforcement with a dangerous weapon.

Court documents show that Khater sprayed Sicknick and another officer with a can of hand-held pepper spray. Khater also sprayed U.S. Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards, who appeared publicly before the House Jan. 6 committee in June and spoke at Friday’s sentencing.

“You are center stage in our recurring nightmare,” said Gladys Sicknick, the officer’s mother.

Sicknick was hospitalized the evening of the riot and died the following day. The medical examiner determined it was from two strokes caused by a blot clot, deeming it natural causes, while noting that “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”

“I felt like the absolute worst kind of officer,” Edwards said at Friday’s sentencing. “Someone who couldn’t help their friend.”

The government had asked the judge to sentence Khater to 90 months in prison, while Khater’s attorneys asked for the nearly two years he already spent in jail to satisfy his sentence.

Khater’s attorneys argued his anxiety disorder, harsh conditions at the jail and remorse following the riot merited the lower sentence.

“It’s not in my nature. It’s not who I am,” Khater told the judge just before he was sentenced.

Court documents state that Khater and co-defendant George Pierre Tanios traveled to D.C. together to attend former President Trump’s rally near the White House before joining rioters on the Capitol grounds. 

Tanios had previously bought two cans of bear spray and two cans of pepper spray, giving the pepper spray canister to Khater, which he then used against the officers. 

Tanios will be sentenced later on Friday. 

Five members of Sicknick’s family spoke during the proceedings and largely blamed Khater for the officer’s death, asking for a harsh punishment.

Sicknick’s longtime partner, Sandra Garza, specifically demanded “the maximum sentence you can impose.”

Garza earlier this month also filed a separate civil lawsuit against Khater, Tanios and Trump, demanding $10 million in damages from each of them.

Roughly 140 police officers were assaulted on Jan. 6 at the Capitol, according to the Department of Justice.

In the roughly two years since the attack, federal prosecutors have arrested more than 950 defendants.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a California law intended to prevent doctors from spreading COVID-19 misinformation or disinformation to patients, finding that it is “unconstitutionally vague.” 

A group of five doctors and two nonprofit advocacy groups sued in November after California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed Assembly Bill 2098 into law the month before. 

The law states that disseminating misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including information about the risks of the virus, prevention and treatment methods and vaccines, to patients should be considered “unprofessional conduct.” 

But U.S. District Judge William Shubb ruled Wednesday that the law’s definition of misinformation violates the due process clause of the 1t4h Amendment to the U.S. Constitution due to vagueness.

The law states that misinformation is defined as false information that “contemporary scientific consensus” contrary to the “standard of care” contradicts. 

The plaintiffs argued that “scientific consensus” is a poorly defined concept without an official meaning in the medical community. Shubb said this leaves multiple important questions unanswered, including who determines whether a consensus exists, who must agree for a consensus to exist and how recent the consensus must have been made to be considered contemporary. 

He said plaintiffs are unable to determine if their intended conduct would violate the law as a result. 

Shubb noted that the California state government argued that clear scientific consensus exists on certain issues, but he said the law does not apply consensus to “basic facts” like Down’s syndrome being caused by a chromosomal abnormality. He said COVID-19 is a disease that scientists have studied for only a few years, and scientific conclusions surrounding it are “hotly contested.” 

“COVID-19 is a quickly evolving area of science that in many aspects eludes consensus,” he said. 

Shubb also ruled that the phrase of the law’s provision defining misinformation as false information “that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care” is grammatically incoherent, and a reader cannot understand the relationship between the two clauses. 

Shubb found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction. 

The Hill has reached out to Newsom’s office for comment.

The charges filed against the mother of Ashli Babbitt for illegally blocking traffic and disobeying an order from police on the second anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection have been dropped. 

Gabriel Shoglow-Rubenstein, a spokesperson for the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, said the office declined to pursue the case against Micki Witthoeft.

A spokesperson said the office does not comment on decisions on whether to pursue charges but reviews each case and decides whether to move forward based on the strength of the evidence and benefit to public safety.

Officers told the group to get off the road and go to the sidewalk or they would be arrested, and Witthoeft refused to leave despite multiple warnings. She instead put her hands behind her back and asked to be arrested. 

Witthoeft was processed and released later that afternoon and given a court date. 

Babbitt was fatally shot during the insurrection while she tried to climb through a barricaded door near the House chamber of the Capitol. Members of Congress were still in the process of evacuating at the time. 

U.S. Capitol Police conducted an investigation into the incident and determined that the officer had reasonable belief that they or others were in imminent danger of serious physical injury, finding that their use of force was appropriate. Federal prosecutors declined to press charges against the officer after finding that there was “no evidence” to conclude that the conduct was unlawful “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Updated at 11:15 a.m.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) said Thursday that it has received a temporary court order blocking two firearms companies from selling a device that officials say convert AR-15-style rifles into machine guns. 

The DOJ said in a release that the federal government filed a civil complaint last week against the companies, Rare Breed Triggers, LLC, and Rare Breed Firearms, LLC, along with their operators, Lawrence DeMonico and Kevin Maxwell, alleging that they have unlawfully sold FRT-15 devices, which are intended to convert the rifles into machine guns. 

The DOJ said the defendants have conspired to defraud the United States and committed mail and wire fraud. The release states the manufacture, sale and possession of machine guns is illegal under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. 

The release states U.S. District Judge Nina Morrison granted a temporary restraining order on Wednesday. 

“The Justice Department will continue to do everything in its power to protect the American people from gun violence and to hold accountable those that flood our communities with illegal guns,” said Attorney General Merrick Garland. 

Steven Dettelbach, the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), said Congress decided decades ago that machine guns are illegal, but the defendants are believed to be “flouting the law” despite being warned repeatedly. 

“Machine guns are unlawful because they pose a threat to the public and they are increasingly a risk to law enforcement,” he said. 

The release states that the defendants allegedly sold thousands of FRT-15s to the public and misled their consumers about the devices’ legality. 

Morrison said in her ruling that there is probable cause to believe that the defendants’ conduct is “ongoing and imminent,” making the order necessary. She also said probable cause exists that they did not register the devices to conceal their sale from the ATF. 

The release states that the DOJ’s action is part of the Civil Initiative to Reduce Gun Violence from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. It was created last year to have local, state and federal officials work with community stakeholders to address the “root causes” of gun-related crime. 

“These defendants are believed to have earned millions at the expense of the public’s safety and are alleged to have conspired to undermine these very federal laws which are intended to keep the public safe,” said ATF special agent-in-charge John DeVito. 

The Hill has reached out to Rare Breed Triggers and Rare Breed Firearms for comment.

More than 100 Harvard students walked out of professor John L. Comaroff's class Tuesday afternoon to protest his teaching again after he was placed on leave last year for violating the school's sexual harassment and professional conduct policies.

The Harvard Crimson, the school's student newspaper, reported that the students protested Comaroff's first lecture of the year by plastering the walls of the building where he teaches with signs reading "Abusers have no place on campus" and "Stop protecting sexual predators." After Comaroff started his lecture, students stood up from their seats and walked out, chanting "Justice for survivors," and "No more Comaroff, no more complicity," the student newspaper reported.

Harvard student, Rosie Couture, tweeted a video of students walking out of the classroom that showed students protesting seconds after Comaroff started his lecture. A similar walkout occurred in Comaroff's first lecture of the fall 2022 semester, where he returned to teaching after being placed on unpaid administrative leave, the Harvard Crimson reported.

Comaroff, who teaches African and African American studies and anthropology, was placed on unpaid administrative leave for the spring 2022 semester for violating the school's sexual harassment and professional conduct studies. This suspension came after three anthropology students filed a lawsuit against Harvard last spring, accusing the university of ignoring serious allegations against Comaroff for years.

In the complaint, the students allege that Comaroff threatened their academic careers if they chose to report him.

"When students reported him to Harvard and sought to warn their peers about him, Harvard watched as he retaliated by foreclosing career paths and ensuring that those students would have ’trouble getting jobs,’ ” the complaint filed in February of 2022 stated.  

"Harvard even allowed its investigatory process to be used in service of Professor Comaroff’s campaign of professional blacklisting," the complaint continues. "The results have been devastating: Professor Comaroff and his enablers have destroyed the educational opportunities and careers of countless students."

One of the students who filed the complaint accused Comaroff of kissing her multiple times without her consent and of groping her in public. The lawsuit remains ongoing in the District of Massachusetts federal court.

A judge has ruled that video of the attack on Paul Pelosi, the husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), should be released following a motion from several news organizations, according to multiple reports. 

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Stephen Murphy ruled on Wednesday that the evidence against the alleged attacker, David DePape, should be publicly released, siding with the outlets in ruling that it should be available to the public. 

NBC News reported that the evidence set to be released includes body camera footage that was captured by the officer who responded to the attack at the Pelosis' address, the 911 call that Paul Pelosi made, parts of an interview that the police had with DePape and security video of the break-in that Capitol Police recorded. 

The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, however, had argued in court that publishing the video would distort the facts of the case, and the office and DePape’s defense team both argued it could “irreparably harm” his right to a fair trial, the outlets reported. 

But Murphy noted in his ruling that the footage was already played at a preliminary hearing last month, attorney Thomas Burke, who represented the organizations suing for disclosure, told The New York Times. 

The evidence could be released as soon as Thursday. 

Prosecutors allege that DePape broke into the Pelosis' home in late October looking for the then-Speaker, who was not home at the time. DePape allegedly asked “Where’s Nancy?” to Paul Pelosi after he broke in. 

DePape allegedly struck Paul Pelosi with a hammer and severely injured him. Pelosi needed to receive surgery for a skull fracture and also received injuries to his arm and hand. 

The outlets that sued over the records are the Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Associated Press, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Press Democrat, CNN, Fox News, NBC, ABC, CBS and KQED, which is an NPR member station in San Francisco. 

DePape has pleaded not guilty to six charges, including attempted murder.

A pivotal Supreme Court decision striking down New York’s concealed carry law last summer is set to be tested by a new law crafted by Democrats determined to curtail gun violence in their state.

The new law in part bans firearms in 20 “sensitive places” that include some of New York City’s most famed spots, such as Times Square, Yankee Stadium and the subway system.

Liberals angered by the decision from the new conservative majority on the court are ready for a battle. Democrats in the state designed the law to comply with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices’ biggest expansion of Second Amendment protections in more than a decade.

That June decision struck down New York’s requirement for concealed carry permit applicants to show proper cause.

The new law, which is being challenged by gun rights advocates, also requires permit applicants to demonstrate “good moral character” and provide social media accounts and family contact information.

New York hopes the measures will prevail as lawsuits zig-zag through the courts.

Six members of the Gun Owners of America quickly sued over portions of the law, but their request for an immediate pause was denied this month by the Supreme Court. The court also rejected another challenge from a group of gun dealers.

No justice publicly dissented from either order, suggesting a majority was not eager to immediately go further than last summer’s landmark ruling. But in a statement accompanying one of the orders, Justice Samuel Alito cautioned that the law poses “novel and serious questions” and instructed the challengers to “not be deterred.”

Fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Alito statement, which indicated the refusal to step in was “respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.”

Parties on both sides are downplaying that statement, saying it reflects more of a reluctance on the court’s part to issue a far-reaching precedent before the case goes through lower courts.

The cases are now proceeding more fully in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which will hear arguments in March in tandem with two other lawsuits challenging a broader set of New York gun provisions. 

It leaves an uncertain path ahead for gun control as the nation reels from a new series of mass shootings in the first few weeks of 2023.

Last summer’s 6-3 decision upended most courts’ two-part test that weighed the constitutionality of gun laws and ruled that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition.

The justices noted that states could still prohibit firearms in “sensitive places”; New York’s new law in part tests how widely the term can stretch.

It defines sensitive places to include 20 categories, like Times Square, churches, parks and places where alcohol is served. 

A federal district judge paused enforcement for seven locations in November, but an appeals court weeks later reversed that decision.

University of Wyoming law professor George Mocsary said some of New York’s sensitive places — like polling places — seem permissible based on court precedent while others remain “in serious trouble because they're really egregious.”

“The goal of the law isn't public safety, it's to make this list of sensitive places that's so vast that you can’t go to any destination,” said Mocsary. “All you can practically do is leave your home, spend time on the streets and go back home.”

The challenged provisions also include those that ban firearms on private property without the owner’s express consent and a requirement for concealed carry permit applicants to show “good moral character.”

“It depends on how ‘good moral character’ is deployed,” said Mocsary. “The problem with it is it's vague.”

A spokesman for New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), whose office is defending the law in court, deferred to her previous statement vowing to use “every tool at our disposal.” The governor’s office did not return requests for comment.

Gun control groups and more than a dozen Democratic-led states have filed amicus briefs defending the law, arguing the appeals court should provide more guidance so that gun laws aren’t improperly struck down.

“This case presents an ideal opportunity for this Court to correct these errors by setting out a workable template for how courts in the Second Circuit are to apply Bruen,” one coalition of gun control groups wrote.

In New York, gun rights advocates have also challenged parts of a 10-bill package the state enacted following a mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket in May, which came barely ahead of the high court’s landmark ruling.

Just to the south, a federal judge is considering requests to temporarily block New Jersey’s sensitive place list. Battles over assault-style rifles, bump stocks and nonviolent felons owning guns are also proceeding in various stages.

“I actually am quite optimistic,” said Douglas Letter, chief legal officer at Brady, one of the groups defending the law. “Maybe I'm being totally foolish.”