The Brief

The ABC network sued the Federal Communications Commission in federal court Tuesday in a case with major First Amendment implications, arguing that the Trump administration has violated its free speech rights by launching investigations and challenging its broadcast licenses in retaliation for its news coverage, late-night satire and views on talk shows.

ABC and its corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co., allege that the FCC has taken these actions to appease President Trump, who has repeatedly called for the network to be stripped of its licenses in response to material which has sparked his ire.

The network's lawsuit cites Trump's own social media posts which condemn ABC's news coverage, its talk show The View and late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel — who has frequently mocked the president.

The lawsuit starts: "Government censorship is deeply un-American."

It goes on to note that, in the words of a recent unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the National Rifle Association, the government may not "use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression."

"This case concerns the Administration's sustained effort to do just that," the ABC/Disney lawsuit argues. "The Administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts."

ABC and Disney own eight local TV stations which beam out the national network's shows and local programming in specific regions. Among them are stations in six of the nation's largest markets, which contribute significantly to ABC's bottom line.

They require federal licenses because they rely on the public airwaves. The FCC forced all eight of them to undergo early scrutiny of the renewal process of the licenses, years ahead of schedule. It's an essentially unprecedented move in the modern era.

The FCC and its chief, Brendan Carr, did not immediately comment on the suit. The commission has historically acted in a quasi-independent role from presidential administrations, with the president's party holding three seats and the opposing party two. But Trump publicly said before taking office that he saw it as an extension of the executive branch; recent court decisions have reined in the independence of some other semi-autonomous agencies set up by Congress; and Carr has acted as a booster and advocate for Trump's excoriation of the press, including ABC.

For his part, Carr has said he is making sure broadcasters operate in the public interest — a legal requirement — and that they don't violate Trump's executive order on diversity, equity and inclusion.

But he has also been outspoken in his support for Trump's agenda, including specific criticisms of ABC, Kimmel, "The View" and its journalists. In one instance, he warned that ABC and Disney could "do this the easy way or the hard way" amid the president's call for Kimmel to be pulled off the air. The host was suspended and returned days later after a major public outcry.

Ironically, ABC had been the first in a string of major media companies and digital giants to reach settlements with Trump over lawsuits he filed against them as a private citizen. It paid $16 million to settle his defamation case in December 2024, involving remarks by anchor George Stephanopoulos, after Trump had won a return to the White House but before his inauguration.

Given Trump's continuing broadsides against Kimmel, its daytime talk show "The View," and its journalists, however, Disney has taken an increasingly assertive stance against the administration.

"We're very principled on this," Disney CEO Josh D'Amaro told CNBC's Julia Boorstin last week. "We're going to stand up to what we believe is journalistic and integrity, and we're not going to be told how to run that side of our business."

He took over from former Disney Chairman and CEO Bob Iger in March. Iger, who remains on the Disney board, is now a business partner of Josh Kushner — the brother of President Trump's son-in-law and diplomatic adviser, Jared Kushner — in striking a deal to buy the NBA's Los Angeles Lakers.

Other outlets are closely watching the growing ABC-FCC confrontation.

CBS's parent company Paramount, Meta, X and Google all struck deals similar to the one ABC reached to resolve lawsuits filed by Trump. The president has also filed private lawsuits against the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the BBC over their reporting. They are ongoing.

Copyright 2026 NPR

Students are back at Ensign Intermediate School in Newport Beach Tuesday morning, e-bikes are not.

The Newport-Mesa Unified School District banned electric bikes from school property for kindergarten through eighth grade, citing a spike in e-bike incidents.

Annette Franco, communications officer with Newport-Mesa, said parents wanted to see more e-bike enforcement. It’s the first district in California to adopt a ban, according to officials.

In Orange County, e-bike and e-motorcycle injuries have gone up 430% in the last four years, according to the District Attorney’s office. Children between the ages of 11 and 14 accounted for more than 60% of crashes.

High schoolers in the district can still ride e-bikes to school, but have to take an e-bike/bicycle safety and training course.

LAist has asked the district for information about how officials will enforce the ban, including possible penalties.

What parents say

Some parents applauded the ban, including Brooke Diehl, who was dropping off her daughter at the middle school.

“ I think it's the best thing for the kids,” Diehl said. “I saw a lot of crazy things that I didn't think were safe, and I think ninth grade and up is a good age group for them.”

Sue Healey, a crossing guard, also told LAist that riding e-bikes is more manageable for high schoolers.

“ For the little ones, in this traffic, at this particular time of day, it's not so safe for them,” Healey said, but she also recognizes the downfalls. “ I know it's going to really hurt the parents because now we have a large influx of cars dropping kids off and picking them up.”

Keiko dropped her goddaughter off at the middle school Tuesday morning, and she told LAist that the ban may have been too rash. Keiko declined to share her last name out of concern for pushback from other parents and officials.

“There could have been more education and dialogue, instead of the school board saying, ‘This is what we’re doing,’” Keiko said. “There are a lot of kids that I know who are upset. … they were learning their independence. We need to encourage safety not just through authority but through practice.”

Students at Ensign Intermediate School in Newport Beach can only ride traditional pedal bikes to school as the district's e-bike ban takes effect.

(

Jill Replogle

/

LAist

)

Some students have mixed feelings

A group of four boys walked their bikes across the street from Ensign after riding up a hill. "It's lame," one said of the e-bike ban. "My legs hurt," another said.

Katherine Martinez, a seventh grader, said the change doesn’t affect her because she has a ride to school, but the same can’t be said for all her peers.

“If someone doesn't have anyone to drop them off, and if they miss the bus, they don't have a form of transportation besides that bike,” Martinez said.

Why now? 

The ban comes as more policies across OC crack down on e-bikes.

Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer created an e-bike prosecution unit, “RIDE SAFELY,” to review cases of illegal motorized vehicles. The team would review potential criminal charges for youth and adults, including parents who allow their children to ride illegal e-bikes, according to the department.

In the city of Buena Park, e-bikes, as well as electric skateboards and scooters, are prohibited from being ridden on public city sidewalks. The city of La Palma enforces similar rules.

In Anaheim, Class 3 e-bike riders are not permitted on sidewalks.

Other cities like Santa Ana have seen e-bike incidents. A driver running a red light hit a 44-year-old resident riding an e-bike. He died in the hospital earlier this month, according to Santa Ana police. The day before, a different e-bicyclist was struck by a speeding hit-and-run driver, an incident captured on video provided to KTLA.

More restrictions could be coming 

A state law AB 1569 is in front of legislators that would require the California Department of Education and the California Highway Patrol "to develop a standardized electric bicycle safety and training program for pupils in grades 7 to 12."

On the federal level, the Safe SPEEDS Act would require the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to develop safety standards, mandatory labeling and to regularly conduct studies on e-bike incidents.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Lawyers for a Los Angeles firm representing State Farm in a lawsuit involving the rebuilding of a home after a fire have apologized for artificial intelligence hallucinations in their filings.

The homeowner’s lawyers discovered in motions filed by State Farm “cases that do not exist, quotes that do not exist, and holdings that do not exist,” according to a filing by Eric Khodadian, who is representing Fa’alagilagi Meni-Siliga.

Meni-Siliga filed her lawsuit in July 2024, naming a contractor and the contractor’s insurance company, a public adjuster and her homeowners insurance company, State Farm, as defendants.

A fire in her home in the city of Carson in 2020 caused her home to become uninhabitable, according to the lawsuit. While her contractor was working on the home, a storm caused water damage. After what she said were delays getting State Farm’s approval for repairs, the work on her home was never completed, according to a January court filing. She and her husband have drained their savings and retirement accounts, declared bankruptcy and lost their home to foreclosure, she wrote.

“My family and I have lost forever our family home,” Meni-Siliga, a U.S. Postal Service carrier, wrote. “We do not come from money… It took many years and sacrifice for our family to purchase our home.”

In its original answer to her complaints, State Farm said negligence by the plaintiff, her contractor and public adjuster led to the injuries and damages she suffered. The insurer also said she failed to bring her legal action within a year of the original loss or damage.

The case is set to go to trial in October.

The legal industry is increasingly turning to AI: 41% of law firms and 47% of corporate legal departments said they are using generative AI, according to one recent survey.

That has meant legal "hallucinations" have become more prevalent, said Daniel Ho, a law professor at Stanford University who has researched the issue. In one paper Ho co-wrote last year, he and fellow researchers found that a couple of companies “overstated” that their legal research tools could guarantee hallucination-free legal citations.

A database of legal hallucinations around the world maintained by a Paris-based legal researcher has found 1,922 cases so far; most of them occurred in the United States.

Last year, a California attorney was fined a record amount, $10,000, for using ChatGPT in an opening brief that contained 21 made-up quotes out of 23.

Khodadian shared his findings at an Aug. 7 conference in Los Angeles Superior Court. He wrote in a filing later that a State Farm lawyer was “visibly enraged” afterward and followed him and his co-counsel down the hall, “repeatedly demanding to see the list” of mistakes they had found.

That lawyer was Kenneth Katel of the firm Musick, Peeler & Garrett, who in his filing apologized to the court and to the plaintiff, explaining that his co-counsel told him she used AI to help prepare some filings.

“I was not aware that AI had been used, but as lead trial counsel I accept full responsibility for our filings,” Katel wrote. He also told the court that his firm has updated its policy about AI use but did not provide specifics.

Katel disputed Khodadian’s characterization of what happened after the hearing, though he wrote “it is accurate to say I was upset given the seriousness of the allegations.”

Khodadian and Katel declined to answer questions from CalMatters.

The lawyer who used AI in motions on behalf of State Farm, Jacquelene Robinson, wrote in a filing that she confirmed there were seven case citations across eight filings “that simply didn’t exist,” as well as some incorrect titles of cases and quotes that were not found in cases she cited.

Robinson said she used an AI tool called Irys, which she incorrectly thought was tied to her law firm’s subscription to a legal research tool called Westlaw, which she thought “performed an internal cite check.” She was mistaken, she wrote.

State Farm is reviewing what happened, spokesperson Tom Hartmann said. “State Farm expects its external counsel to conform to the highest level of ethical standards and professionalism, including confirming the accuracy of all legal filings,” he said.

Hartmann did not respond to questions about how many external law firms represent State Farm, and whether the company asks about their AI policies before hiring them.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.