TV News LIES

A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing sanctions against Francesa Albanese, a United Nations human rights investigator whose recent work has focused on the Israeli military campaign against Hamas in Gaza.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon found the Trump administration likely violated Albanese’s First Amendment rights when it imposed sanctions on her in July 2025 because the measures appeared to directly target her speech criticizing Israel.

The State Department did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment but previously defended the sanctions as “legal and appropriate.”

“The United States will continue to condemn and oppose her biased and malicious activities, which have long made her unfit for her role,” a spokesperson said in February. “This lawsuit itself is baseless lawfare, and Albanese is a disgrace.”

More...

A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit alleging defamation by Fox News, ruling for a second time against a former supporter of Donald Trump who claimed he became the target of death threats after the network broadcast inaccurate conspiracy claims about his involvement in the 6 January 2021 US Capitol attack.

Raymond Epps was wrongly accused by Fox of being a government operative who allegedly stirred violence around the Capitol that day in an effort to pin responsibility on supporters of Trump who were upset his first presidency ended in defeat to Joe Biden. According to Epps, formerly a marine and member of the far-right Oath Keepers group, the backlash from those reports led him and his wife to sell their ranch in Arizona and relocate to a recreational vehicle in an attempt to avoid the ongoing harassment.

Jennifer L Hall, a Delaware-based US district judge, ultimately sided with Fox by granting the network’s request to dismiss the lawsuit, concluding that Epps did not provide sufficient evidence showing Fox knowingly aired false information.

More...

The supreme court will soon rule on Hamm v Smith, an Alabama death penalty case that could significantly increase the number of people with intellectual disability who are executed. In this case, Alabama is fighting to execute a man named Joseph Smith. Smith’s five IQ scores – 72, 74, 74, 75 and 78 – all fall around the bottom fifth percentile of the population.

Based on these IQ tests, which measure learning, reasoning and problem-solving, and Smith’s adaptive behaviors, which include the social and practical skills that Smith uses to navigate everyday life, a federal court determined that Smith is intellectually disabled. Because the supreme court held in its landmark 2002 Atkins ruling that executing anyone with an intellectual disability violates the constitution, Alabama cannot execute Smith.

But Alabama disagreed with this decision, even though empirical standards put the IQ threshold for intellectual disability between 70 and 75. Yes, Alabama wants to execute Smith. But the case could also create a new, dangerous protocol: when a capital defendant has taken multiple IQ tests, any score above 70 could close the door an intellectual disability claim.

More...

The Trump administration has launched a legal attack on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), raising questions about the future of other nonprofits at odds with the president.

The center pleaded not guilty Thursday in an unusual case, one that accuses the SPLC of turning its back on its very mission: using a now-defunct informant program to funnel money to the hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) it spent decades fighting.

It’s a claim the SPLC strongly denies — one it says is “not even supported by or contained in the indictment itself.” It also has accused prosecutors of misleading the grand jury to gain an indictment.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, sees the prosecution as a new wave in a long line of cases targeting civil society, an effort he said began with law firms and universities.

More...

A federal judge ruled on Thursday that the terminations of hundreds of humanities grants last year by the Trump administration’s so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) were unconstitutional and involved “blatant” discrimination. In April last year, Donald Trump’s administration terminated more than 1,400 grants, representing more than $100m in congressionally appropriated funds awarded to scholars, writers, research institutions and other humanities organizations.

The terminations were part of a cost-cutting drive that billionaire Elon Musk was leading at Doge.

“The Government engaged in blatant viewpoint discrimination,” the US district judge Colleen McMahon said in condemning what the Trump administration cast as a crackdown on diversity practices.

The judge said the terminations violated the US constitution’s first amendment, which provides free speech rights, and its fifth amendment’s equal protection component. The ruling also said Doge did not have the legal authority to terminate the grants.

More...

A Federal Bureau of Investigation agent interviewed a high-ranking Wisconsin state election official in recent days about the 2020 presidential election, according to sources with knowledge of the conversation.

The agent sat down with Wisconsin Elections Commission deputy administrator Robert Kehoe earlier this week and discussed with Kehoe how elections are carried out in Wisconsin and various election theories. Kehoe debunked false claims and clarified how elections work, according to the sources.

One of the sources called the conversation "a professional interview by a career FBI agent."

A spokeswoman for the FBI did not immediately respond to questions. A spokeswoman for the state Elections Commission declined to comment.

The interview comes at a time when Wisconsin and Milwaukee election officials are bracing for potential action from federal authorities over their administration of the 2020 election, which President Donald Trump falsely claims he won.

More...