A judge ruled that the president’s Jan. 6 speech was political, not official.

A federal judge delivered a serious setback to President Donald Trump Tuesday in long-running civil lawsuits seeking to hold him liable for the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that evidence produced so far in the litigation brought by police officers and Democratic lawmakers indicated that Trump’s speech at the Ellipse that day was political in nature and not subject to the immunity the Supreme Court has found for a president’s official acts.

“President Trump has not shown that the Speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties,” Mehta wrote. “The content of the Ellipse Speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity.”

. . .

Joseph Sellers, an attorney for Democratic lawmakers suing Trump, welcomed the decision.

“We’re very pleased that the court recognized that President Trump cannot avoid accountability for his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021,” the lawyer said in an interview. “This decision, if it holds up, is going to pave the way to a trial in federal district court on these claims.”

. . .

“We may have a trial in the spring or summer of 2028,” Sellers said. That would be more than seven years after the events at issue in the cases.

Agri Stats Inc. has agreed to stop producing benchmarking reports for protein processors — or change how it puts them together — as part of proposed settlements ending three cases alleging price fixing in the chicken, pork and turkey industries, according to motions for preliminary approval filed Tuesday.

The deals offer consumers and purchasers “unprecedented conduct relief,” the pork consumers said in one of the motions, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Agri Stats’ conduct reform “substantially changes the scope of information sharing that would be permitted in the industry,” they said.

“Should Agri Stats resume its pork reports, Agri Stats has agreed to substantially reshape their form, including removing participant lists, stopping the sales reports altogether, aggregating critical plant-level fields and removing suspect fields altogether,” the consumers said. “Thus, the settlement puts a permanent end to the reports that this court concluded were ‘the most suspicious’ of Agri Stats’ products.”

Additionally, the pork consumers reached a $4.1 million settlement with pork processor Triumph Foods LLC, according to the motion.

. . .

The chicken consumers are represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Steve W. Berman, Breanna Van Engelen and Rio R. Pierce of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and by Brent W. Johnson, Benjamin D. Brown, Daniel H. Silverman, Alison Deich and Zachary Glubiak of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Participants in the Salvation Army’s rehabilitation programs who worked at the organization’s thrift stores with no pay showed that there is a common question over whether they are employees under state laws, an Illinois federal judge said, signing off on three classes. 

In an order Thursday, U.S. District Judge Manish S. Shah granted a group of workers class certification in their suit seeking unpaid wages from the Salvation Army, saying that common questions prevail over individual ones. 

… 

In the Thursday order, Judge Shah also granted final certification of a collective under the FLSA.  

Harini Srinivasan of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, who is representing the workers, said in a statement that she was pleased with the decision, adding that “being denied minimum wage for required, full-time labor undermines the dignity and autonomy of people seeking stability and support.” 

… 

The workers are represented by Christine E. Webber, Joseph M. Sellers, Rebecca Ojserkis, Michael Hancock and Harini Srinivasan of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld and Michael Freedman of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP and Jessica Riggin of Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP. 

Affiliates of Huntington Ingalls, Marinette Marine and Serco have reached settlements resolving the claims against them in a case accusing some of the country’s biggest shipbuilders of conspiring to suppress naval architect and engineer wages.

The naval architects and engineers filed notices for the settlements Wednesday in the Eastern District of Virginia, but did not disclose any terms of the deals. The workers accuse the shipbuilding companies and engineering consultants of having an “unwritten gentlemen’s agreement” to not recruit engineering employees from one another.

. . .

Plaintiffs are represented by Steven J. Toll, Brent W. Johnson, Robert W. Cobbs, Alison S. Deich, Zachary R. Glubiak, Sabrina S. Merold and Callan C. Bruzzone of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shana E. Scarlett, Rio S. Pierce and Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, George F. Farah and Nicholas Jackson of Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Candice J. Enders and Julia R. McGrath of Berger Montague PC, and Brian D. Clark, Arielle S. Wagner and Stephen J. Teti of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Agri Stats Inc. reached settlements Friday with groups of buyers in separate cases over alleged price fixing in the chicken, pork and turkey industries, ending several sets of claims targeting use of its benchmarking reports by protein processors.

. . .

The chicken consumers are represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Steve W. Berman, Breanna Van Engelen and Rio R. Pierce of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Brent W. Johnson, Benjamin D. Brown, Daniel H. Silverman, Alison Deich, Zachary Glubiak and Zachary Krowitz of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Summary by Bloomberg AI

• Abbott Laboratories will invest $40 million over five years into its Michigan plant to resolve stockholder allegations against executives and board members over its infant formula safety.
• The derivative settlement seeks to ensure Abbott maintains sanitation and environmental monitoring programs in line with the health-care company’s food safety principles across all of its US powdered infant formula facilities.
• The deal proposed by shareholders would require Abbott to extend a consent decree’s monitoring plans and have a third party review any enhancements to those, among other oversight measures.

Abbott Laboratories will invest $40 million over five years into its highly-scrutinized Michigan plant to resolve stockholder allegations against executives and board members over its infant formula safety.

The derivative settlement seeks to ensure Abbott maintains sanitation and environmental monitoring programs in line with the health-care company’s food safety principles across all of its US powdered infant formula facilities, shareholders said in a proposed brief to the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. All $40 million at the Sturgis, Mich., plant will be spent on “core operations, food safety, or quality assurance.”

The investors Tuesday sought preliminary approval of the deal, inching Abbott’s current and former officers and directors toward the end of more than three years of litigation tied to the Sturgis plant, which was temporarily shut down in 2022 amid bacterial contamination concerns.

. . .

Scott & Scott Attorneys at Law LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC are lead counsel for the shareholders leading the settlement, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund and Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. Scott & Scott Attorneys at Law LLP didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Cohen Milstein declined to comment.

A New York federal judge pared claims Monday against JPMorgan Chase & Co. in a suit from workers who alleged they paid too much for prescription drugs, but opened discovery on allegations that the bank’s contract with its pharmacy benefit manager caused transactions prohibited by federal benefits law.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon entered an opinion and order granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss the Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit, which JPMorgan workers filed in March 2025. The proposed class alleged JPMorgan breached its fiduciary duties of loyalty and caused prohibited transactions by failing to rein in the excessive prescription drug costs in its employee health plan that were imposed by its PBM, CVS Caremark. Caremark isn’t named as a defendant in the case.

. . .

Kai Richter, an attorney for the proposed class, said Monday, “We are pleased with the court’s common-sense ruling that paying more for prescription drugs constitutes an injury-in-fact and look forward to litigating plaintiffs’ prohibited transaction claims that the court properly held may go forward.”

. . .

The proposed class is represented by Michael Eisenkraft, Michelle Yau, Daniel Sutter and Kai Richter of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and by Tamar Katz and Michael Lieberman of Fairmark Partners LLP.

A New York-based barbecue chain’s executives and the caretaker of the company’s employee stock ownership plan have agreed to settle a class action from workers alleging ESOP mismanagement, the parties told a New York federal court Monday.

U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote endorsed the joint notice of settlement and request for a stay later on Monday in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit. A certified class of participants in the W BBQ Holdings Inc. ESOP filed the notice jointly with defendants Argent Trust Co., as well as Herbert Wetanson and Gregor Wetanson, the president and vice president of W BBQ Holdings Inc. The notice said that following mediation, the parties had “reached an agreement in principle to settle the … matter on a class basis.”

Workers for W BBQ Holdings Inc. filed suit in 2022, accusing Argent and the Wetansons of violating federal benefits law and costing workers millions in retirement savings by letting them pay too much for their employer’s stock in a $99 million deal in 2016. W BBQ is a holding company for Dallas BBQ, a chain of restaurants in New York City.

Judge Cote’s endorsed order gave the parties until March 13 to provide the court with an executed settlement agreement or “place the terms of the settlement on the record” on March 16.

The case had been set for trial beginning March 16, court records showed, with the class requesting assurance from the court in February that a $15 million deal between the DOL, Argent and the Wetansons in a separate enforcement case wouldn’t affect proceedings in the class action.

. . .

Michelle C. Yau, an attorney for the class, told Law360: “The settlement represents an excellent recovery for Dallas BBQ ESOP participants, and we commend the class representatives for their persistence and dedication to the class.”

. . .

The class is represented by Michelle C. Yau, Kai H. Richter, Daniel R. Sutter, Caroline E. Bressman, Ryan A. Wheeler, Elizabeth McDermott and Michael Eisenkraft of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Aetna must reconsider whether two transgender women can receive coverage for their gender-affirming facial reconstruction surgeries, a Connecticut federal judge ruled, finding that a policy categorically excluding coverage for the procedure was likely discriminatory.

In a ruling issued Sunday, U.S. District Judge Victor A. Bolden rejected Aetna Life Insurance Co.’s motion to dismiss a proposed class action brought by transgender women challenging the policy under the Affordable Care Act’s antidiscrimination provision. The judge also granted a preliminary injunction requiring the company to reassess denied claims for two of the women, finding that the policy continues to aggravate their gender dysphoria symptoms.

“The lack of access to medically necessary gender-affirming care and the attendant health risks meet the standard for irreparable harm,” the judge said.

. . .

The women are represented by Christine E. Webber, Aniko R. Schwarcz and Harini Srinivasan of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, by Joseph J. Wardenski of Wardenski PC and by Gabriel Arkles, Ezra Cukor and Sydney Duncan of the Advocates for Trans Equality Education Fund.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s September 2025 policy shift on mandatory arbitration clauses has not gained in popularity.

Investor advocates continue to warn that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s September 2025 policy statement allowing companies to compel shareholders into private arbitration will negatively impact markets, including hurting stock valuations and investor confidence.

The policy, which reflects President Donald Trump’s goal of making it easier for companies to conduct initial stock offerings, was swiftly met with criticism from institutional investors, who insisted the move would hinder transparency.

. . .

Part of Trump’s agenda has focused on rooting out “frivolous litigation.”

According to Laura Posner, a partner in the securities litigation and investor protection practice of law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, over the past 30 years, courts have shown that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which increased the pleading standards plaintiffs must meet to initiate a suit, is working as intended: Roughly half of securities cases are dismissed at the motion-to-dismiss stage, meaning frivolous or weak claims are filtered out early, while credible ones are allowed to move forward.

Posner says the risk to company valuations will deter companies from seeking forced arbitration provisions.

“The reason we haven’t seen companies adopt such a provision—in addition to upsetting their investor base, which they should be responsive to—is that [forced arbitrations] are going to increase the cost of litigation pretty exponentially,” Posner says. “Instead of having one, maybe two, cases that are class action, you’re then dealing with hundreds or thousands of cases” in arbitration.