Saturday, October 24, 2026Memphis · 80°/50°, TennesseeEst. 2026
Markets · loading
Law & Courts
Law
Al Jazeera
New Mexico judge orders Meta to pay $25 billion over Facebook privacy claims
State court cuts jury-based figure of $219.5 billion but keeps penalty among the largest ever against a company
SANTA FE — State District Judge Francis Mathew ordered Meta to pay $25 billion in civil penalties on Wednesday in New Mexico's consumer-protection suit over Facebook's data practices. A jury found in September that Facebook misled users, with more than 43 million violations of the state Unfair Practices Act. At the statutory maximum of $5,000 each, that came to about $219.5 billion. The judge wrote that the trial record supported the top penalty rate, citing willful conduct, senior-leadership involvement and a systematic pattern. He did not explain how he arrived at the reduced $25 billion. Interest will accrue at 15 percent a year. Meta's chief legal officer said the company will appeal, arguing the case amounts to a tax on speech. Attorney General Raúl Torrez called it a historic day for consumers. Appeals could delay any payment for years.
Why it mattersThe order shows how much exposure large tech companies face under state consumer-protection statutes, and sets up an appeal on penalty size and First Amendment grounds.
Full Fifth Circuit upholds no-bond detention for migrants who entered unlawfully
Divided 10-7 en banc ruling backs Trump administration policy as Supreme Court weighs a related detention statute
NEW ORLEANS — The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 10-7 on Friday that noncitizens who entered the country without inspection and were never admitted may be held during removal proceedings without a bond hearing. Judge Cory Wilson's main opinion said the petitioners received the process due to unadmitted noncitizens. Judge James Ho concurred, saying the power to remove includes the power to detain. Judge Leslie Southwick, writing the principal dissent, said the majority built an 'impenetrable wall' between the Constitution and long-term U.S. residents. The decision backs a Department of Homeland Security approach adopted last year that treats anyone who evaded border authorities as an 'applicant for admission,' however long ago they entered. On Oct. 1 the Supreme Court agreed to hear Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, which asks whether the same detention statute, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(A), covers people living in the interior.
Why it mattersThe ruling deepens the legal conflict over mandatory immigration detention and raises the stakes for the Supreme Court's pending case on the statute.
Ninth Circuit rules Trump's 2025 Los Angeles National Guard deployment was unlawful
Two-to-one panel decision binds future cases in the circuit, citing the Supreme Court's Chicago ruling
SAN FRANCISCO — A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 on Friday that President Trump's deployment of the National Guard to the Los Angeles area last year was unlawful. The panel rejected the argument that violent protests against his immigration crackdown let him take control of the troops from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Judge Jennifer Sung wrote that the government had not made either of the required threshold showings. The deployment has ended, but the ruling now binds later Ninth Circuit panels if troops are sent to California again. The court had sided with Trump at an earlier stage. It reversed course after the Supreme Court found he had not met the legal requirements to deploy the Guard unilaterally in Chicago, reading 'regular forces' to mean the U.S. military. Last year's deployments also reached Memphis. The Washington, D.C., deployment rests on different legal authority and continues.
Why it mattersThe decision sets circuit precedent limiting presidential federalization of state Guard troops, a question with direct history in Memphis.
Fifth Circuit revives Mississippi DEI law and removes judge after AI-tainted order
Appeals court pulls the case from Judge Henry Wingate, whose clerk used AI in drafting the injunction
NEW ORLEANS — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has overturned a 2025 order by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate that blocked Mississippi from enforcing its law restricting diversity, equity and inclusion practices. The panel also reassigned the case to another judge. Wingate had told the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts that a law clerk used artificial intelligence to help draft the restraining order. He said the opinion was a draft that had not gone through the standard review process. The appeals court wrote that the district court, or perhaps its AI agent, ignored and manipulated governing law. The ruling lets Mississippi enforce the statute while litigation continues before a new judge. The episode adds to scrutiny of AI use in chambers, after courts began sanctioning lawyers for fabricated citations.
Why it mattersThe ruling pairs a merits win for Mississippi's DEI restrictions with a rare appellate rebuke over a judge's use of AI.
