California
Manufacturers of ultraprocessed foods sued by San Francisco
The city of San Francisco filed a lawsuit against some of the nation’s top food manufacturers on Tuesday, arguing that ultraprocessed food from the likes of Coca-Cola and Nestle are responsible for a public health crisis.
City Attorney David Chiu named 10 companies in the lawsuit, including the makers of such popular foods as Oreo cookies, Sour Patch Kids, Kit Kat, Cheerios and Lunchables. The lawsuit argues that ultraprocessed foods are linked to diseases such as Type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease and cancer.
Ultraprocessed foods include candy, chips, processed meats, sodas, energy drinks, breakfast cereals and other foods that are designed to “stimulate cravings and encourage overconsumption,” Chiu’s office said in the release. Such foods are “formulations of often chemically manipulated cheap ingredients with little if any whole food added,” Chiu wrote in the lawsuit.
The other companies named in the lawsuit are PepsiCo; Kraft Heinz Company; Post Holdings; Mondelez International; General Mills; Kellogg; Mars Incorporated; and ConAgra Brands.
None of the companies named in the suit immediately responded to emailed requests for comment.
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been vocal about the negative impact of ultraprocessed foods and their links to chronic disease and has targeted them in his Make America Healthy Again campaign. Kennedy has pushed to ban such foods from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for low-income families.
An August report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that most Americans get more than half their calories from ultraprocessed foods.
In October, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a first-in-the-nation law to phase out certain ultraprocessed foods from school meals over the next decade.
San Francisco’s lawsuit cites several scientific studies on the negative impact of ultraprocessed foods on human health.
The lawsuit argues that by producing and promoting ultraprocessed foods, the companies violate California’s Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance statute. It seeks a court order preventing the companies from “deceptive marketing” and requiring them to take actions such as consumer education on the health risks of ultraprocessed foods and limiting advertising and marketing of ultraprocessed foods to children.
It also asks for financial penalties to help local governments with health care costs caused by the consumption of ultraprocessed foods.
Illinois
Protesters move to end their lawsuit over immigration officers’ tactics in the Chicago area
CHICAGO (AP) — A coalition of protesters, journalists and faith leaders moved Tuesday to dismiss their lawsuit challenging the aggressive tactics of federal immigration officers in the Chicago area, arguing that the Trump administration’s “Operation Midway Blitz” has largely ended.
While plaintiffs characterized their move as a win, the case was headed toward a skeptical appeals court.
The court filing Tuesday noted that the federal officers led by senior U.S. Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino “are no longer operating in the Northern District of Illinois.” Bovino left the Chicago area last month for North Carolina, but sporadic immigration arrests have continued by other federal agents.
“We got the relief that we were looking for. They left,” said David Owens, an attorney representing the plaintiffs. “When the emergency goes away, things change.”
The attorneys also noted a blistering 223-page opinion by U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis last month that outlined her findings in issuing a preliminary injunction restricting federal agents’ use of force.
The fate of the order was up in the air after an appeals court last month deemed it “overbroad” and “too prescriptive.” But the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also cautioned against “overreading” its stay of Ellis’ injunction and said a quick appeal process could lead to a “more tailored and appropriate” order. Arguments before the three-judge panel were set for later this month.
Owens declined to detail the plaintiffs’ legal reasoning in dropping the case, including if the appeals court’s intervention played a role.
The injunction was in response to a lawsuit filed by news outlets and protesters who claimed federal officers used excessive force during an immigration crackdown that has netted more than 3,000 arrests since September across the nation’s third-largest city and its many suburbs. Among other things, Ellis’ order restricted agents from using physical force and chemical agents such as tear gas and pepper balls, unless necessary or to prevent an “an immediate threat.” She said the current practices violated the constitutional rights of journalists and protesters.
“Because of the work of many Chicagoans, including the brave plaintiffs in this case, the brutality of Operation Midway Blitz was carefully documented for all to see, the constitutional rights of civilians across the region were vindicated, and the Trump administration’s justifications for its conduct were exposed as blatant lies,” said attorney Steve Art. “Judge Ellis’s powerful opinion stands as the final word in this case, and as a defining document of our time.”
A message left Tuesday for the Department of Homeland Security was not immediately returned. The department oversees both the U.S Border Patrol and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
DHS and Bovino have defended the operation in Chicago, saying agents were going after criminals and faced hostile crowds.
The case also precipitated a trove of new details about the immigration operation in the Chicago area, including through private interviews with Bovino, body camera footage and witness testimonies in court. Ellis cited each of these in her opinion, describing agents launching tear gas without warning, aiming rubber rounds at reporters, tackling protesters and laughing as blood oozed from a demonstrator’s ear — scenes that Ellis says were flatly at odds with the government’s own narratives.
Washington
Judge issues injunction restricting immigration arrests in D.C
A federal judge late Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from making widespread immigration arrests in the nation’s capital without warrants or probable cause that the person is an imminent flight risk.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington granted a preliminary injunction sought by civil liberties and immigrants rights groups in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
An email to the department after hours Tuesday was not immediately returned.
Officers making civil immigration arrests generally have to have an administrative warrant. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, they may make arrests without a warrant only if they have probable cause to believe the person is in the U.S. illegally and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, according to Howell’s ruling.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other plaintiffs’ attorneys argued federal officers were frequently patrolling and setting up checkpoints in Washington, D.C., neighborhoods with large numbers of Latino immigrants and then stopping and arresting people indiscriminately.
They provided sworn declarations from people they say were arrested without warrants or a required assessment of flight risk and cited public statements by administration officials that they said showed the administration was not using the probable cause standard.
Attorneys for the administration denied it had a policy allowing such arrests.
Howell, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, a Democrat, said the plaintiffs had “established a substantial likelihood of an unlawful policy and practice by defendants of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests without probable cause.”
“Defendants’ systemic failure to apply the probable cause standard, including the failure to consider escape risk, directly violates” immigration law and the Department of Homeland Security’s implementing regulations, she said.
In addition to blocking the policy, she ordered any agent who conducts a warrantless civil immigration arrest in Washington to document “the specific, particularized facts that supported the agent’s pre-arrest probable cause to believe that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.”
Howell also required the government to submit that documentation to plaintiffs’ attorneys.
The ruling is similar to two others in federal lawsuits that also involved the ACLU, one in Colorado and another in California.
Another judge had issued a restraining order barring federal agents from stopping people based solely on their race, language, job or location in the Los Angeles area after finding that they were conducting indiscriminate stops, but the Supreme Court lifted that order in September.
Michigan
Man arraigned on charge of assault with intent to murder
Joseph Vanker, 70, of Utica, was arraigned on a charge of assault with intent to murder after an alleged incident in his apartment on Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2025.
It is alleged that on Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2025, Utica Police were dispatched to Vanker’s apartment for a welfare check after a 911 hang-up. The police discovered the victim suffering with stab wounds requiring immediate medical attention. Vanker allegedly stabbed the victim multiple times.
On Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2025, Vanker was arraigned before Magistrate Christopher Alayan in the 41A District Court in Shelby Township, on a charge of assault with intent to murder, a life or any term of years felony. Vanker also has a Habitual Second Offender Notice, which is an aggravating sentencing factor.
Magistrate Alayan set a $500,000 cash/surety (no 10%) bond with a GPS and alcohol tether ordered upon release. Vanker is scheduled for a Probable Cause Conference on Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. and a
Preliminary Exam on Tuesday, Dec. 16 at 9 a.m., both before Judge Stephen S. Sierawski at the 41A District Court in Shelby Township.
Michigan
Attorney and former township clerk to stand trial for alleged 2020 election voter data breach
On Dec. 2, former Adams Township Clerk Stephanie Scott, 53, and her private attorney Stefanie Lynn Junttila, 44, also known as Stefanie Lambert, were bound over to stand trial in the 1st Circuit Court in Hillsdale County for allegedly permitting an unauthorized computer examiner access to voter data, including non-public voter information, concerning the 2020 General Election, announced Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. Scott was bound over on: One count of Using a Computer to Commit a Crime, a seven-year felony; one count of Computers - Unauthorized Access, a five-year felony; one count of Conspiracy to Commit the Offense of Computers -Unauthorized Access, a five-year felony; and one count of Misconduct in Office, a five-year felony.
Scott additionally faces one count of Disobeying a Lawful Instruction or Order of the Secretary of State as Chief Election Officer, a 90-day misdemeanor.
Lambert was bound over on: One count of Using a Computer to Commit a Crime, a seven-year felony; one count of Computers - Unauthorized Access, a five-year felony; and one count of Conspiracy to Commit the Offense of Computers -Unauthorized Access, a five-year felony.
Manufacturers of ultraprocessed foods sued by San Francisco
The city of San Francisco filed a lawsuit against some of the nation’s top food manufacturers on Tuesday, arguing that ultraprocessed food from the likes of Coca-Cola and Nestle are responsible for a public health crisis.
City Attorney David Chiu named 10 companies in the lawsuit, including the makers of such popular foods as Oreo cookies, Sour Patch Kids, Kit Kat, Cheerios and Lunchables. The lawsuit argues that ultraprocessed foods are linked to diseases such as Type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease and cancer.
Ultraprocessed foods include candy, chips, processed meats, sodas, energy drinks, breakfast cereals and other foods that are designed to “stimulate cravings and encourage overconsumption,” Chiu’s office said in the release. Such foods are “formulations of often chemically manipulated cheap ingredients with little if any whole food added,” Chiu wrote in the lawsuit.
The other companies named in the lawsuit are PepsiCo; Kraft Heinz Company; Post Holdings; Mondelez International; General Mills; Kellogg; Mars Incorporated; and ConAgra Brands.
None of the companies named in the suit immediately responded to emailed requests for comment.
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been vocal about the negative impact of ultraprocessed foods and their links to chronic disease and has targeted them in his Make America Healthy Again campaign. Kennedy has pushed to ban such foods from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for low-income families.
An August report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that most Americans get more than half their calories from ultraprocessed foods.
In October, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a first-in-the-nation law to phase out certain ultraprocessed foods from school meals over the next decade.
San Francisco’s lawsuit cites several scientific studies on the negative impact of ultraprocessed foods on human health.
The lawsuit argues that by producing and promoting ultraprocessed foods, the companies violate California’s Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance statute. It seeks a court order preventing the companies from “deceptive marketing” and requiring them to take actions such as consumer education on the health risks of ultraprocessed foods and limiting advertising and marketing of ultraprocessed foods to children.
It also asks for financial penalties to help local governments with health care costs caused by the consumption of ultraprocessed foods.
Illinois
Protesters move to end their lawsuit over immigration officers’ tactics in the Chicago area
CHICAGO (AP) — A coalition of protesters, journalists and faith leaders moved Tuesday to dismiss their lawsuit challenging the aggressive tactics of federal immigration officers in the Chicago area, arguing that the Trump administration’s “Operation Midway Blitz” has largely ended.
While plaintiffs characterized their move as a win, the case was headed toward a skeptical appeals court.
The court filing Tuesday noted that the federal officers led by senior U.S. Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino “are no longer operating in the Northern District of Illinois.” Bovino left the Chicago area last month for North Carolina, but sporadic immigration arrests have continued by other federal agents.
“We got the relief that we were looking for. They left,” said David Owens, an attorney representing the plaintiffs. “When the emergency goes away, things change.”
The attorneys also noted a blistering 223-page opinion by U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis last month that outlined her findings in issuing a preliminary injunction restricting federal agents’ use of force.
The fate of the order was up in the air after an appeals court last month deemed it “overbroad” and “too prescriptive.” But the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also cautioned against “overreading” its stay of Ellis’ injunction and said a quick appeal process could lead to a “more tailored and appropriate” order. Arguments before the three-judge panel were set for later this month.
Owens declined to detail the plaintiffs’ legal reasoning in dropping the case, including if the appeals court’s intervention played a role.
The injunction was in response to a lawsuit filed by news outlets and protesters who claimed federal officers used excessive force during an immigration crackdown that has netted more than 3,000 arrests since September across the nation’s third-largest city and its many suburbs. Among other things, Ellis’ order restricted agents from using physical force and chemical agents such as tear gas and pepper balls, unless necessary or to prevent an “an immediate threat.” She said the current practices violated the constitutional rights of journalists and protesters.
“Because of the work of many Chicagoans, including the brave plaintiffs in this case, the brutality of Operation Midway Blitz was carefully documented for all to see, the constitutional rights of civilians across the region were vindicated, and the Trump administration’s justifications for its conduct were exposed as blatant lies,” said attorney Steve Art. “Judge Ellis’s powerful opinion stands as the final word in this case, and as a defining document of our time.”
A message left Tuesday for the Department of Homeland Security was not immediately returned. The department oversees both the U.S Border Patrol and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
DHS and Bovino have defended the operation in Chicago, saying agents were going after criminals and faced hostile crowds.
The case also precipitated a trove of new details about the immigration operation in the Chicago area, including through private interviews with Bovino, body camera footage and witness testimonies in court. Ellis cited each of these in her opinion, describing agents launching tear gas without warning, aiming rubber rounds at reporters, tackling protesters and laughing as blood oozed from a demonstrator’s ear — scenes that Ellis says were flatly at odds with the government’s own narratives.
Washington
Judge issues injunction restricting immigration arrests in D.C
A federal judge late Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from making widespread immigration arrests in the nation’s capital without warrants or probable cause that the person is an imminent flight risk.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington granted a preliminary injunction sought by civil liberties and immigrants rights groups in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
An email to the department after hours Tuesday was not immediately returned.
Officers making civil immigration arrests generally have to have an administrative warrant. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, they may make arrests without a warrant only if they have probable cause to believe the person is in the U.S. illegally and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, according to Howell’s ruling.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other plaintiffs’ attorneys argued federal officers were frequently patrolling and setting up checkpoints in Washington, D.C., neighborhoods with large numbers of Latino immigrants and then stopping and arresting people indiscriminately.
They provided sworn declarations from people they say were arrested without warrants or a required assessment of flight risk and cited public statements by administration officials that they said showed the administration was not using the probable cause standard.
Attorneys for the administration denied it had a policy allowing such arrests.
Howell, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, a Democrat, said the plaintiffs had “established a substantial likelihood of an unlawful policy and practice by defendants of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests without probable cause.”
“Defendants’ systemic failure to apply the probable cause standard, including the failure to consider escape risk, directly violates” immigration law and the Department of Homeland Security’s implementing regulations, she said.
In addition to blocking the policy, she ordered any agent who conducts a warrantless civil immigration arrest in Washington to document “the specific, particularized facts that supported the agent’s pre-arrest probable cause to believe that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.”
Howell also required the government to submit that documentation to plaintiffs’ attorneys.
The ruling is similar to two others in federal lawsuits that also involved the ACLU, one in Colorado and another in California.
Another judge had issued a restraining order barring federal agents from stopping people based solely on their race, language, job or location in the Los Angeles area after finding that they were conducting indiscriminate stops, but the Supreme Court lifted that order in September.
Michigan
Man arraigned on charge of assault with intent to murder
Joseph Vanker, 70, of Utica, was arraigned on a charge of assault with intent to murder after an alleged incident in his apartment on Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2025.
It is alleged that on Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2025, Utica Police were dispatched to Vanker’s apartment for a welfare check after a 911 hang-up. The police discovered the victim suffering with stab wounds requiring immediate medical attention. Vanker allegedly stabbed the victim multiple times.
On Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2025, Vanker was arraigned before Magistrate Christopher Alayan in the 41A District Court in Shelby Township, on a charge of assault with intent to murder, a life or any term of years felony. Vanker also has a Habitual Second Offender Notice, which is an aggravating sentencing factor.
Magistrate Alayan set a $500,000 cash/surety (no 10%) bond with a GPS and alcohol tether ordered upon release. Vanker is scheduled for a Probable Cause Conference on Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. and a
Preliminary Exam on Tuesday, Dec. 16 at 9 a.m., both before Judge Stephen S. Sierawski at the 41A District Court in Shelby Township.
Michigan
Attorney and former township clerk to stand trial for alleged 2020 election voter data breach
On Dec. 2, former Adams Township Clerk Stephanie Scott, 53, and her private attorney Stefanie Lynn Junttila, 44, also known as Stefanie Lambert, were bound over to stand trial in the 1st Circuit Court in Hillsdale County for allegedly permitting an unauthorized computer examiner access to voter data, including non-public voter information, concerning the 2020 General Election, announced Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. Scott was bound over on: One count of Using a Computer to Commit a Crime, a seven-year felony; one count of Computers - Unauthorized Access, a five-year felony; one count of Conspiracy to Commit the Offense of Computers -Unauthorized Access, a five-year felony; and one count of Misconduct in Office, a five-year felony.
Scott additionally faces one count of Disobeying a Lawful Instruction or Order of the Secretary of State as Chief Election Officer, a 90-day misdemeanor.
Lambert was bound over on: One count of Using a Computer to Commit a Crime, a seven-year felony; one count of Computers - Unauthorized Access, a five-year felony; and one count of Conspiracy to Commit the Offense of Computers -Unauthorized Access, a five-year felony.
