Florida
Supreme Court won’t intervene in discrimination suit led by Black ex-head coach against NFL
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to intervene in a discrimination lawsuit led by former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores against the NFL, allowing the case to proceed toward trial.
The justices rebuffed an appeal from the league, which wanted the case handled through its arbitration process rather than open court in New York. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the decision not to hear the case.
Flores, who’s Black, sued the league and three teams in February 2022, alleging the league was “rife with racism” regarding its hiring practices when it comes to Black coaches. He was later joined in the lawsuit by fellow Black coaches Steve Wilks and Ray Horton.
Flores, who was fired by the Dolphins shortly before the suit was filed, is now the Minnesota Vikings’ defensive coordinator.
The NFL has argued Flores should go through arbitration rather than the legal system, but lower courts have sided with the plaintiffs. The league said it respected the Supreme Court decision, which allows lower-court rulings to stay in place, but is “fully prepared to defend ourselves as this matter proceeds.”
David Gottlieb and Douglas Wigdor, attorneys for the plaintiffs, said they were pleased with the decision. “The NFL must now accept that its commissioner cannot be the arbitrator over discrimination claims against the league and its teams. We look forward to litigating these claims in court,” they said in a statement.
Flores was fired after posting a 24-25 record over three years without a playoff appearance. The Dolphins did have back-to-back winning seasons before Flores was dismissed.
Flores sued the NFL as well as the Denver Broncos, the New York Giants and the Houston Texans. He interviewed with the Broncos in 2019 and the Giants and Texans in 2022.
Wilks, who was fired as the New York Jets’ defensive coordinator in December, joined the lawsuit by claiming the Arizona Cardinals in 2018 hired him as a “bridge coach” — promoting him to interim coach after they fired another coach but then passing over him for the full-time role. He said the Cardinals didn’t provide him with a realistic chance to succeed.
Horton, who last coached in the NFL in 2019, alleged the Tennessee Titans didn’t offer him a genuine interview for the head coaching position in 2016.
New York
Judge throws out author’s lawsuit against first lady
NEW YORK (AP) — A judge threw out author Michael Wolff’s lawsuit against first lady Melania Trump on Friday, ruling that his “contorted” attempt to prevent her from suing him for $1 billion over his statements about her and Jeffrey Epstein “is not how the federal courts work.”
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil in federal court in Manhattan chided Wolff for an “inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship” and said she “will not be conscripted to oversee an abusively presented spat.”
Vyskocil, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, agreed that Wolff and the first lady “have a real dispute,” but said “they must litigate it according to the same procedures as everyone else.”
Wolff sued Melania Trump last October after her lawyer, Alejandro Brito, told him in a letter that she would be “left with no alternative” but to sue him if he didn’t retract statements that the lawyer said had caused her “overwhelming reputational and financial harm.”
Wolff wanted a judge to declare that he did not defame the first lady and that, were she to pursue a lawsuit against him, she would be liable for costs, fees and unspecified monetary damages.
Wolff originally sued in state court in New York under a law barring lawsuits designed to silence critics. Such lawsuits are known as SLAPPs, or strategic lawsuits against public participation. Brito then had the case transferred to federal court and later sought to have it dismissed or moved to a federal court in Florida.
Vyskocil, in her 45-page decision, said that while federal court does have jurisdiction, she was declining to exercise it and “dismisses this case to be litigated like any other.”
Nick Clemens, a spokesperson for Melania Trump, said she “is proud to continue standing up to, and fighting against, those who spread malicious and defamatory falsehoods as they desperately try to get undeserved attention and money from their unlawful conduct.”
In April, Melania Trump made a statement at the White House denying any affiliation with Epstein, the millionaire financier and convicted sex offender who killed himself in jail in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.
Reading prepared remarks, the first lady said she and her lawyers were fighting back against “unfound and baseless lies” that suggested she had ties to Epstein.
“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,” Melania Trump said. “The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.”
In his lawsuit, Wolff argued that the Trumps “have made a practice of threatening those who speak against them” with costly legal actions.
He said the threats were “designed to create a climate of fear in the nation so that people cannot freely or confidently exercise their First Amendment rights.”
Wolff has published a dozen books, including four bestsellers about the president.
Wolff said in the lawsuit that Melania Trump’s threat to sue him was related to statements he made to The Daily Beast and in three social media videos. Some statements were incomplete phrases and were taken out of context, he said.
Others, the lawsuit said, were protected speech. For instance, the statement that the Trumps were in a “sham marriage, trophy marriage,” was a “fair and justified” statement of opinion, it said.
The lawsuit noted that Wolff never said Melania Trump was involved in any of Epstein’s crimes.
In July 2025, after receiving a letter from Brito, The Daily Beast retracted an article titled, “Melania Trump ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author,” that was based on an interview with Wolff.
Wolff, in his lawsuit, said his comments pertained to the first lady’s “involvement” last year managing the matter “behind the scenes” at the White House — not that she was involved in any of Epstein’s crimes.
Among other statements Wolff said were true were his comments about Melania Trump meeting Donald Trump in Epstein’s social circle, and that Donald Trump liked to have sex with his friend’s wives and first slept with Melania Trump on Epstein’s private jet.
Missouri
Legal fight could delay a proposed $7B settlement in Roundup cancer claims
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Delays could be in store for a proposed $7.25 billion settlement covering thousands of claims that the maker of Roundup weedkiller failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.
An attorney opposed to the settlement filed paperwork Friday to move the case to federal court instead of a Missouri court, where people face a June 4 deadline to opt out of the settlement. The dispute about who should preside over the proposed settlement could disrupt its deadlines and delay a resolution about whether it should be approved.
The legal wrangling over the settlement is playing out as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs a case that could block thousands of lawsuits filed in state courts against agrochemical-maker Bayer, which added Roundup to its portfolio when it acquired Missouri-based Monsanto in 2018. Bayer contends the state-level claims that it failed to warn of cancer risks should be forbidden because it followed federal labeling standards that don’t require a warning.
Germany-based Bayer also disputes the assertion that Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate, can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it’s not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed. But plaintiffs point to a 2015 decision by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, which classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic.”
The case before the Supreme Court was filed on behalf John Durnell, who says he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after more than 20 years of spraying Roundup on a community garden in St. Louis.
Durnell is not covered by the proposed class-action settlement. But his attorney, Ashley Keller, filed objections opting out of the settlement on behalf of several other clients before also filing a document to shift the settlement case to federal court.
“This is a huge settlement that is extinguishing the rights of tens of thousands of cancer victims,” Keller said Friday. “It was rushed in to state court.”
The move to federal court is sure to face opposition.
Attorney Christopher Seeger, who is proposed as a claimants’ representative in the settlement, denounced the court shift as “a baseless delay tactic that should be promptly denied.”
The proposed nationwide settlement was filed in February in St. Louis Circuit Court in Missouri. It’s designed to address most pending Roundup lawsuits, as well as any additional cases brought in the coming years by people who were exposed to Roundup. But if too many claimants opt out, Bayer reserves the right to cancel it.
A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for July 9 in state court. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, is expected to issue a decision in Durnell’s case by the end of June.
The proposed settlement calls for Bayer to make annual payments into a special fund for up to 21 years, totaling as much as $7.25 billion. The amount of money paid out to individuals would vary
depending on how they used Roundup, how old they were when diagnosed and the severity of their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
An agricultural, industrial or turf worker exposed at length to Roundup would receive an average of $165,000 if they were diagnosed with an aggressive form of the illness while younger than age 60, according to the proposed settlement. But those diagnosed at age 78 or older would get an average of $10,000.
Washington
Supreme Court rejects Florida’s bid to sue Western states over truck licenses for immigrants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Florida’s long shot attempt to sue California and Washington state over the issuance of commercial driver licenses to truckers who don’t speak English and are not authorized to be in the United States.
The case stems from a crash in Florida last year that killed three people. The driver, Harjinder Singh, is accused of making an illegal U-turn that caused the accident. Singh, who is from India, was carrying a valid commercial driver’s license from California and had earlier been granted one by Washington state.
Republican-led Florida has accused the Western states, led by Democrats, of openly defying immigration laws and asked the justices to rule that states lack the authority to issue CDLs to people who are not citizens or legal permanent residents.
The Supreme Court typically hears appeals of lower-court decisions, but it sometimes takes on what are known as original lawsuits in which states sue each other in the nation’s highest court.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from Tuesday’s order, as they often do when the court rejects an original lawsuit, saying that the court has no choice but to hear such cases.
Separately, a federal appeals court has blocked a Trump administration proposal to impose new restrictions that would severely limit which immigrants can get commercial driver’s licenses to drive a semitrailer truck or bus.
Supreme Court won’t intervene in discrimination suit led by Black ex-head coach against NFL
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to intervene in a discrimination lawsuit led by former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores against the NFL, allowing the case to proceed toward trial.
The justices rebuffed an appeal from the league, which wanted the case handled through its arbitration process rather than open court in New York. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the decision not to hear the case.
Flores, who’s Black, sued the league and three teams in February 2022, alleging the league was “rife with racism” regarding its hiring practices when it comes to Black coaches. He was later joined in the lawsuit by fellow Black coaches Steve Wilks and Ray Horton.
Flores, who was fired by the Dolphins shortly before the suit was filed, is now the Minnesota Vikings’ defensive coordinator.
The NFL has argued Flores should go through arbitration rather than the legal system, but lower courts have sided with the plaintiffs. The league said it respected the Supreme Court decision, which allows lower-court rulings to stay in place, but is “fully prepared to defend ourselves as this matter proceeds.”
David Gottlieb and Douglas Wigdor, attorneys for the plaintiffs, said they were pleased with the decision. “The NFL must now accept that its commissioner cannot be the arbitrator over discrimination claims against the league and its teams. We look forward to litigating these claims in court,” they said in a statement.
Flores was fired after posting a 24-25 record over three years without a playoff appearance. The Dolphins did have back-to-back winning seasons before Flores was dismissed.
Flores sued the NFL as well as the Denver Broncos, the New York Giants and the Houston Texans. He interviewed with the Broncos in 2019 and the Giants and Texans in 2022.
Wilks, who was fired as the New York Jets’ defensive coordinator in December, joined the lawsuit by claiming the Arizona Cardinals in 2018 hired him as a “bridge coach” — promoting him to interim coach after they fired another coach but then passing over him for the full-time role. He said the Cardinals didn’t provide him with a realistic chance to succeed.
Horton, who last coached in the NFL in 2019, alleged the Tennessee Titans didn’t offer him a genuine interview for the head coaching position in 2016.
New York
Judge throws out author’s lawsuit against first lady
NEW YORK (AP) — A judge threw out author Michael Wolff’s lawsuit against first lady Melania Trump on Friday, ruling that his “contorted” attempt to prevent her from suing him for $1 billion over his statements about her and Jeffrey Epstein “is not how the federal courts work.”
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil in federal court in Manhattan chided Wolff for an “inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship” and said she “will not be conscripted to oversee an abusively presented spat.”
Vyskocil, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, agreed that Wolff and the first lady “have a real dispute,” but said “they must litigate it according to the same procedures as everyone else.”
Wolff sued Melania Trump last October after her lawyer, Alejandro Brito, told him in a letter that she would be “left with no alternative” but to sue him if he didn’t retract statements that the lawyer said had caused her “overwhelming reputational and financial harm.”
Wolff wanted a judge to declare that he did not defame the first lady and that, were she to pursue a lawsuit against him, she would be liable for costs, fees and unspecified monetary damages.
Wolff originally sued in state court in New York under a law barring lawsuits designed to silence critics. Such lawsuits are known as SLAPPs, or strategic lawsuits against public participation. Brito then had the case transferred to federal court and later sought to have it dismissed or moved to a federal court in Florida.
Vyskocil, in her 45-page decision, said that while federal court does have jurisdiction, she was declining to exercise it and “dismisses this case to be litigated like any other.”
Nick Clemens, a spokesperson for Melania Trump, said she “is proud to continue standing up to, and fighting against, those who spread malicious and defamatory falsehoods as they desperately try to get undeserved attention and money from their unlawful conduct.”
In April, Melania Trump made a statement at the White House denying any affiliation with Epstein, the millionaire financier and convicted sex offender who killed himself in jail in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.
Reading prepared remarks, the first lady said she and her lawyers were fighting back against “unfound and baseless lies” that suggested she had ties to Epstein.
“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,” Melania Trump said. “The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.”
In his lawsuit, Wolff argued that the Trumps “have made a practice of threatening those who speak against them” with costly legal actions.
He said the threats were “designed to create a climate of fear in the nation so that people cannot freely or confidently exercise their First Amendment rights.”
Wolff has published a dozen books, including four bestsellers about the president.
Wolff said in the lawsuit that Melania Trump’s threat to sue him was related to statements he made to The Daily Beast and in three social media videos. Some statements were incomplete phrases and were taken out of context, he said.
Others, the lawsuit said, were protected speech. For instance, the statement that the Trumps were in a “sham marriage, trophy marriage,” was a “fair and justified” statement of opinion, it said.
The lawsuit noted that Wolff never said Melania Trump was involved in any of Epstein’s crimes.
In July 2025, after receiving a letter from Brito, The Daily Beast retracted an article titled, “Melania Trump ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author,” that was based on an interview with Wolff.
Wolff, in his lawsuit, said his comments pertained to the first lady’s “involvement” last year managing the matter “behind the scenes” at the White House — not that she was involved in any of Epstein’s crimes.
Among other statements Wolff said were true were his comments about Melania Trump meeting Donald Trump in Epstein’s social circle, and that Donald Trump liked to have sex with his friend’s wives and first slept with Melania Trump on Epstein’s private jet.
Missouri
Legal fight could delay a proposed $7B settlement in Roundup cancer claims
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Delays could be in store for a proposed $7.25 billion settlement covering thousands of claims that the maker of Roundup weedkiller failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.
An attorney opposed to the settlement filed paperwork Friday to move the case to federal court instead of a Missouri court, where people face a June 4 deadline to opt out of the settlement. The dispute about who should preside over the proposed settlement could disrupt its deadlines and delay a resolution about whether it should be approved.
The legal wrangling over the settlement is playing out as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs a case that could block thousands of lawsuits filed in state courts against agrochemical-maker Bayer, which added Roundup to its portfolio when it acquired Missouri-based Monsanto in 2018. Bayer contends the state-level claims that it failed to warn of cancer risks should be forbidden because it followed federal labeling standards that don’t require a warning.
Germany-based Bayer also disputes the assertion that Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate, can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it’s not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed. But plaintiffs point to a 2015 decision by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, which classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic.”
The case before the Supreme Court was filed on behalf John Durnell, who says he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after more than 20 years of spraying Roundup on a community garden in St. Louis.
Durnell is not covered by the proposed class-action settlement. But his attorney, Ashley Keller, filed objections opting out of the settlement on behalf of several other clients before also filing a document to shift the settlement case to federal court.
“This is a huge settlement that is extinguishing the rights of tens of thousands of cancer victims,” Keller said Friday. “It was rushed in to state court.”
The move to federal court is sure to face opposition.
Attorney Christopher Seeger, who is proposed as a claimants’ representative in the settlement, denounced the court shift as “a baseless delay tactic that should be promptly denied.”
The proposed nationwide settlement was filed in February in St. Louis Circuit Court in Missouri. It’s designed to address most pending Roundup lawsuits, as well as any additional cases brought in the coming years by people who were exposed to Roundup. But if too many claimants opt out, Bayer reserves the right to cancel it.
A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for July 9 in state court. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, is expected to issue a decision in Durnell’s case by the end of June.
The proposed settlement calls for Bayer to make annual payments into a special fund for up to 21 years, totaling as much as $7.25 billion. The amount of money paid out to individuals would vary
depending on how they used Roundup, how old they were when diagnosed and the severity of their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
An agricultural, industrial or turf worker exposed at length to Roundup would receive an average of $165,000 if they were diagnosed with an aggressive form of the illness while younger than age 60, according to the proposed settlement. But those diagnosed at age 78 or older would get an average of $10,000.
Washington
Supreme Court rejects Florida’s bid to sue Western states over truck licenses for immigrants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Florida’s long shot attempt to sue California and Washington state over the issuance of commercial driver licenses to truckers who don’t speak English and are not authorized to be in the United States.
The case stems from a crash in Florida last year that killed three people. The driver, Harjinder Singh, is accused of making an illegal U-turn that caused the accident. Singh, who is from India, was carrying a valid commercial driver’s license from California and had earlier been granted one by Washington state.
Republican-led Florida has accused the Western states, led by Democrats, of openly defying immigration laws and asked the justices to rule that states lack the authority to issue CDLs to people who are not citizens or legal permanent residents.
The Supreme Court typically hears appeals of lower-court decisions, but it sometimes takes on what are known as original lawsuits in which states sue each other in the nation’s highest court.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from Tuesday’s order, as they often do when the court rejects an original lawsuit, saying that the court has no choice but to hear such cases.
Separately, a federal appeals court has blocked a Trump administration proposal to impose new restrictions that would severely limit which immigrants can get commercial driver’s licenses to drive a semitrailer truck or bus.
