Racine County and two juvenile detention center staff members in Caledonia, Wisconsin have been sued for allegedly using excessive force on a teen. In a statement, the county says it has made changes since the incident. 

The teen’s mother, Kianna Reed, brought the lawsuit against the county and Robert and Jordan Knight, described in the suit as former and current security coordinators. The facility, the Jonathan Delagrave Youth Development and Care Center, opened less than a month before the incident. 

The lawsuit alleges that on May 27, 2025, the teen, who suffers from emotional and psychological disabilities, became emotionally dysregulated and the Knights egged him on and physically attacked him with excessive force that violated his Eighth Amendment rights. . 

In December, the state public defender’s office released video footage of part of the incident, which appeared to show four staff members directing the then-15-year-old to move from a spot by a wall in a hallway, possibly to a nearby room, and the teen not moving, the Examiner reported. 

After a staff member took a swing at the teen, the situation devolved into a struggle. The teen was struck repeatedly by staff before and after he was on the ground. 

“I’m devastated. No mother should ever have to watch her child be beaten by the very people entrusted with his safety,” Reed said, according to the December release from the public defender’s office. “Seeing that video and knowing my son is still in that facility is terrifying.”  According to the lawsuit, which was filed April 28, the teen is no longer at the facility as of April 9. 

The lawsuit says his placement in the facility stemmed from being found guilty of a misdemeanor count of retail theft and a misdemeanor count of obstructing an officer. 

On the evening of May 27, 2025, while the teen was in the facility dayroom, he “became dysregulated due to one or more of his disabilities, and he began arguing with another (facility) resident,” the lawsuit alleges. An employee requested assistance from safety and security coordinators.

The Knights responded to the dayroom, and the teen willingly walked with them to the intake area with no physical resistance, the lawsuit alleges. Two other coordinators accompanied them to the intake room.

In December, the county said that the teen made multiple threats of physical violence to other juveniles and staff. During the walk to the intake area, he was “mouthing off” to the Knights, who egged him on, the lawsuit alleges. The teen told Jordan Knight he would beat him up but “made no physical contact or aggressive moves toward Jordan Knight.” 

In the intake area, Robert Knight pointed in the teen’s face and screamed at him to “stop making threats,” the lawsuit states. 

The lawsuit says Knight told the teen to enter a holding room and repeatedly said “go ahead then.” It says that without physical provocation or physical resistance from the teen, he punched the teen in the face.

The lawsuit alleges that the teen did not punch, kick or otherwise try to injure the Knights during the incident. Robert and Jordan Knight hit him over 20 times with closed fists, knee strikes and elbow strikes, it says.

The teen experienced physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress and other damages, the lawsuit says.

According to the public defender’s office, the teen had bruises, swelling on his right eye, blurred vision and headaches, scrapes and cuts and dried blood in his ear, based on records from evaluations arranged by the facility. 

The county executive’s office sent a statement to the Examiner, saying that after the incident, Racine County conducted an internal review of policies, procedures and operational practices at the center, with protocol updates receiving final approval from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. 

“Racine County Human Services is dedicated to continuous improvement. It is imbedded in our operations with the goal for the highest quality of services for those entrusted in our care,” the county asserted in a written statement. 

The county stated that as part of that review, it implemented additional measures focused on supervisor practices, staff training and continued development on de-escalation, trauma-informed care and evidence-based responses for youth with complex behavioral and mental health needs. 

The county said it also reviewed treatment-oriented models used in other facilities serving youth with significant behavioral or mental health challenges “to inform ongoing operational improvements.”

Racine County said in December that “the primarily involved staff member” was immediately placed on administrative leave after the incident and resigned within three days. 

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported in December that this was Robert Knight and that Knight said the teen was displaying signs of aggression at the time of the incident. He said his actions were justified based on the teen’s history at the center.  

The Journal Sentinel reported that he said he intended to force the boy back and not actually strike him but that this is not apparent in the video. 

Knight said he resigned because of a shift toward working with more youth with mental health issues, according to the Journal Sentinel. 

The lawsuit alleges that he resigned to avoid investigation of his conduct and actions. 

A different worker seen repeatedly striking Anthony was ordered to complete eight hours of remedial training, according to the public defender’s office release in December. The Journal Sentinel reported that this was Jordan Knight, who, according to the lawsuit, is still working at the facility.

In December, the county said that law enforcement and independent human services agencies fully investigated and reviewed the incident. It said the details of the investigation and relevant video were provided to the Racine County District Attorney’s Office, and that the office declined to pursue prosecution. 

On Friday, the Examiner asked the district attorney’s office for a statement on why the office declined to pursue prosecution. District Attorney Tricia Hanson said in an email that the lawsuit does not change her decision. She said the burden of proof in a criminal case is significantly higher than in the civil lawsuit. 

In December, the public defender’s office called for a “full-scale” investigation into conditions at the facility and the qualifications of staff members who interact with children. State Public Defender Jennifer Bias said that meaningful reforms to how children are treated in the juvenile justice system are needed. 

In its statement on Friday, the county said it will respond to the allegations through the legal process and will not further discuss the pending lawsuit. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Federal agencies say they have yet to take steps to implement President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting voting by mail, as the Department of Justice fights a Democrat-led lawsuit against it.

The Justice Department late Friday filed documents asking a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit and to not block the executive order on a preliminary basis because the order hasn’t been implemented. The filings marked the Trump administration’s first effort to defend the order in court.

The March 31 order directs the creation of state citizenship lists and restricts how ballots can be sent through the mail, instructions that Democrats and election experts have called unconstitutional and illegal. It comes as Trump has seized on the specter of noncitizen voting, an extremely rare phenomenon, to demand sweeping voting restrictions.

In its Friday filing, the Justice Department sought to persuade Judge Carl J. Nichols in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia that a legal challenge is premature.

“If and when the Executive Branch takes some action to implement the Executive Order” then a lawsuit can be brought, Stephen Pezzi, a senior trial counsel in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, wrote in a court filing.

Nichols has scheduled a hearing for May 14.

No action taken, officials tell court

The DOJ’s argument relies on statements by key federal officials that the agencies affected by the order — the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Postal Service — are still deliberating over how to carry out Trump’s directive. In declarations filed in court on Friday, officials at all three agencies say final decisions haven’t been made.

“As the Postal Service is still in the deliberation phase of determining how to implement the Executive Order, we have not yet published a proposed rule, nor have we reached any final decisions about the substance of a proposed rule,” Steven Monteith, the Postal Service’s chief customer and marketing officer, wrote.

The executive order directs the postmaster general, who leads the Postal Service, to propose a rule that would block states from sending ballots through the mail except to voters on lists provided by the state to the Postal Service. 

The order also instructs Homeland Security to compile lists of voting-age U.S. citizens in each state with the help of the Social Security Administration. Democrats allege the Trump administration is building an unauthorized national voter list, despite the U.S. Constitution giving states the responsibility of running federal elections.

Michael Mayhew, deputy associate director of the Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, wrote in a declaration that the agency “has not yet begun preparation” of state citizenship lists. USCIS is a subsidiary of Homeland Security.

At the Social Security Administration, Jessica Burns MacBride, head of program policy and data exchange, wrote that the agency hasn’t made any final decisions “about its role” in implementing the executive order.

Focus on Postal Service

The order’s opponents are especially watching the Postal Service’s response, since it is an independent corporation overseen by its Board of Governors — not the White House.

Democrats and experts on postal law say Trump has no authority to order the postmaster general to take any action. The Board of Governors hires and fires the postmaster general, and board members serve seven-year terms, helping insulate them from political pressure.

Last month, 37 Democratic U.S. senators signed a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner and the Board of Governors urging the Postal Service to not implement the executive order. The senators pointed out the president has no authority to regulate federal elections or the Postal Service.

“Like the President, the Postal Service has no authority to regulate the manner of voting in federal elections, nor who is eligible to vote by mail in such elections,” the letter says.

The Postal Service is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed by Democratic groups and leaders in Congress. 

The Justice Department, which is representing the Postal Service, sidestepped questions about the president’s authority in Friday’s court filing. It called arguments about Trump’s authority over the Postal Service an “abstract legal question” that can’t be resolved before the agency takes action.

Still, Monteith appeared to nod to concerns within the Postal Service over the order’s legality while avoiding specifics.

“I am aware that deliberations are currently ongoing within the Postal Service regarding the implementation of the Executive Order,” Monteith wrote, adding that the deliberations include “legal considerations” regarding the order.

Unitary executive theory

The executive order faces at least five lawsuits, including a challenge brought by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general led by California’s Rob Bonta. The Justice Department has not yet filed court documents defending the order in that case.

For their part, Republican attorneys general — led by Catherine Hanaway of Missouri — are defending the executive order. Their position, if adopted by courts, would give Trump sweeping control over the Postal Service.

In a May 1 court filing, the GOP attorneys general argue those challenging the executive order are unlikely to succeed in showing that Trump cannot direct the Postal Service to propose a rule. They say that federal law doesn’t specifically prohibit the president from ordering the postmaster general to put forward rules on mail ballots — and it’s unconstitutional if it does.

“The Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President,” The Republican coalition says, articulating a view commonly called the unitary executive theory: the idea that Congress cannot constitutionally create agencies that exist outside of White House control.

The Republican states involved also include Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.

Democrats and many constitutional law experts reject the unitary executive theory, though it has gained support among Trump-aligned Republicans as the White House seeks greater control over independent agencies.

If the U.S. Supreme Court eventually greenlights Trump’s efforts to control the Postal Service and other independent agencies, it would mark a “tremendous” change in how the federal government operates, James Campbell Jr., an attorney in the Washington, D.C., area who consults on postal law, said in an interview last month.

“What you’re basically talking about is redesigning the U.S. government,” Campbell said.

Over six years after 17-year-old Alvin Cole was fatally shot by then-Wauwatosa officer Joseph Mensah, the two sides in a contentious civil case have confirmed that they are close to reaching a confidential settlement deal, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. 

A third jury trial in federal court has been set for early May. Each of the first two trials — both held in 2025 — ended in hung juries, with jurors unable to unanimously decide whether Mensah used excessive force when he shot Cole in February 2020. 

The shooting occurred at Mayfair Mall, after a group of teenagers got into an  argument. One of the teens flashed a handgun and Wauwatosa police officers responded to a call  and encountered the group outside the mall. The teens fled when they saw the police, Cole among them. As Mensah and other officers chased Cole, Cole accidentally shot himself in the arm when the handgun he was carrying went off. Cole fell to the ground as police surrounded him, shouting various commands. 

Mensah told investigators that he shot Cole, believing that Cole was raising or pointing the handgun at him. Other officers’ accounts contradicted Mensah’s.  An officer who was closer to Cole, David Shamsi, said that neither Cole nor the gun moved after Cole was on the ground. Another officer, Evan Olson said that the gun was pointed at him, even though he was in a different position from Mensah. After the shooting, Olson and Mensah — who said that they were friends on and off the job — went off alone together in a squad car, violating policies which state that officers need to be separated after shootings to avoid contaminating statements. 

During the trials, Mensah said that he fired to protect himself and others around him, and that he didn’t want to die. Mensah also testified that he did not remember much of what happened that night. Cole was the third person Mensah had killed on the job during his five years as a Wauwatosa officer. Mensah resigned from the department in 2020 following months of protests over the shooting, and was hired by the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department before he  retired from law enforcement. Jurors  in the case were not allowed to know about Mensah’s two other shootings in 2015 and 2016, less than a year apart.

The terms of the settlement, including the amount awarded to the family, will remain confidential, lawyers said. During the first trial, attorneys representing Cole’s family asked for $22 million, and then $9 million in the second trial.

This article has been edited to correct the settlement figures sought during the first and second trials. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A lawsuit seeking to throw out Wisconsin’s congressional maps on the basis that they’re unconstitutionally anti-competitive was dismissed Tuesday by a panel of three circuit court judges. 

The lawsuit was brought last summer by bipartisan business group Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy Coalition, represented by the progressive nonprofit Law Forward. 

For more than a decade, Wisconsin has been a national symbol of the effects of extreme partisan gerrymandering and Tuesday’s dismissal comes amid a effort by both major parties to redraw maps ahead of this fall’s midterm elections. 

A national mid-decade redistricting tit-for-tat started last year when Texas Republicans drew new maps, at President Donald Trump’s request, in an attempt to limit the number of Democrats in the House of Representatives. A number of other Republican states, including Missouri and North Carolina, followed suit. In response, voters in California and Virginia voted to change state laws to allow Democrats to re-draw their maps to minimize Republican seats. 

This week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis introduced a bill that would redraw his state’s maps to give Republicans four more seats. 

While both parties have drawn political maps to favor their own candidates, only congressional Democrats have proposed a bill that would ban partisan gerrymandering. In Wisconsin, state Democrats have long pushed for the adoption of a non-partisan redistricting commission. 

Wisconsin’s current congressional maps were adopted in 2021 by the state Supreme Court after Gov. Tony Evers and Republicans in the Legislature were unable to reach a deal on their own. When forced to weigh in, the Supreme Court instituted a “least change” rule that required any maps proposed to the Court to hew as closely as possible to the maps instituted by Republicans in 2011. The map the Court chose was proposed by Evers, a Democrat, but resulted in a heavily Republican congressional delegation, since they were drawn to adhere to the “least change” standard.

The 2011 political maps and the least change decision allowed Republicans to hold six of the state’s eight congressional seats. The state Supreme Court tossed out the state’s legislative maps in 2023 — which remained heavily gerrymandered under the “least change” standard — on the grounds that the shapes of the districts, some of which were broken into noncontiguous parts, were illegal. 

Over the years, the court system has heard a number of challenges to Wisconsin’s congressional maps on the basis that they are an illegal partisan gerrymander. A separate three-judge panel dismissed another lawsuit on partisan gerrymandering grounds late last month. 

Despite that dismissal, the Law Forward lawsuit argued that its claims were new and therefore deserved to be considered by the courts. The lawsuit argued that the maps were drawn to unfairly give incumbents of both parties an advantage, pointing to the fact that only one of the state’s congressional districts, western Wisconsin’s 3rd CD, is regularly decided by a single-digit margin. 

“After the Wisconsin Legislature adopted the 2011 congressional map, congressional races over the ensuing decade were, as intended, highly uncompetitive,” the lawsuit stated. “The Court’s adoption … of the ‘least change’ congressional map necessarily perpetuated the essential features — and the primary flaws — of the 2011 congressional map, including the 2011 congressional map’s intentional and effective effort to suppress competition.”

Republicans and their allies intervened in the case, arguing that it should be dismissed because the anti-competitive argument treads the same ground as the partisan gerrymandering claims the Court has already declined to hear. 

The three-judge panel, made up of Dane County Judge David Conway, Marathon County Judge Michael Moran and Portage County Judge Patricia Baker, agreed and dismissed the case, noting that the makeup of the state’s political maps is a question best left to the political branches of government, not the judicial system.

“Plaintiffs’ anti-competitive gerrymandering claims are functionally equivalent to partisan gerrymandering claims, at least for purposes of the political question analysis,” the judges wrote. “In a two-party system, partisan fairness and competitiveness are correlated: a more competitive map is typically a fairer map, whereas less competition usually means less partisan fairness. The objective of both theories is to change ‘the partisan makeup of districts,’ whether by achieving proportional representation, electoral competitiveness, or both.” 

Doug Poland, Law Forward’s director of litigation, said in a statement Tuesday that it’s disappointing the panel dismissed the case before it had the opportunity to hear evidence. He also said the panel’s ruling will be appealed directly to the Supreme Court. 

“This is the first anti-competitive gerrymandering case ever filed in Wisconsin courts, and it deserves to be heard,” Poland said. “We believe that the circuit court was wrong in concluding that anti-competitive gerrymandering is ‘functionally equivalent’ to partisan gerrymandering. They are different claims, based on different evidence, that target different ways of manipulating representation to the detriment of voters.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A Dane County judge dismissed a lawsuit from 15 Wisconsin children who had challenged laws they argued made climate change worse and violated their constitutional rights. 

The lawsuit was filed in August by the groups Our Children’s Trust and Midwest Environmental Advocates against the state Public Service Commission and Legislature. 

The suit argued that state lawmakers have made a number of declarations that the state’s energy production should be decarbonized and the greenhouse gas emissions of that production should be reduced, but state laws prevent that from happening. 

The state’s law for siting power plants requires that the state Public Service Commission determine that “[t]he proposed facility will not have undue adverse impact on other environmental values such as, but not limited to, ecological balance, public health and welfare, historic sites, geological formations, the aesthetics of land and water and recreational use.” However the law also prohibits the PSC from considering air pollution, including from greenhouse gas emissions, in that determination. 

Additionally, the state set a goal in 2005 that 10% of Wisconsin’s energy come from renewable sources by 2015. That goal was met in 2013. However, now that the goal has been met, state law treats it as a ceiling on renewable energy the PSC can require.

In a decision issued last week, Judge Julie Genovese said she’s sympathetic to the children’s argument but that the lawsuit was asking her to weigh in on a fundamentally political, not legal, question. 

“While the court is sympathetic to the youths and admires their willingness to access the courts in their quest to protect the planet, I conclude that the case must be dismissed because environmental policy is a nonjusticiable political question,” she wrote. 

Attorneys for the Legislature had also argued that the children didn’t have standing to bring the case, pointing to a federal court decision in a similar case in California. 

But in other states similar cases have had more success. A group of Montana children successfully sued to protect their right to a clean environment in 2024. 

Tony Wilkin Gibart, MEA’s executive director, told Wisconsin Public Radio he believes there’s a strong case for the ruling to be appealed. 

“Youth plaintiffs are frustrated,” he said. “They’re also incredibly determined and have expressed a lot of resolve to continue this fight.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Hyundai and Kia have built some genuinely impressive electric vehicles over the last few years but one issue continues to plague many owners. A single part called the Integrated Charging Control Unit, or ICCU for short, manages charging between the high-voltage battery and the 12-volt system to ensure both systems work properly and in harmony.

The thing is that when the ICCU fails, the car can largely become a giant brick. Hyundai and Kia have issued recalls to fix ICCU-related issues but now a class action lawsuit claims that the fix is just using more bad parts.

More: Hyundai Fixed His ICCU Then Let Thieves Total The Rest Before He Even Saw It

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, targets Hyundai Motor Company, Kia, Genesis Motor, and Hyundai Kefico, the supplier behind the charging control units. Affected vehicles include the 2022–2024 Kia EV6, 2022–2024 Hyundai IONIQ 5, 2023–2025 Hyundai IONIQ 6, 2023–2025 Genesis GV60, 2023–2025 Genesis Electrified GV70, and 2023–2024 Genesis Electrified GV80.

According to the filing reviewed by Carcomplaints, the central grievance isn’t that these cars have problems. It’s that they allegedly keep having them after a recall was meant to put the matter to rest. Two plaintiffs, Hayes Young of New Jersey and Roy Williams of Kentucky, say their recall service accomplished nothing.

Young says his 2023 IONIQ 5 SEL suffered a dead 12-volt battery in December 2025 that required replacement under warranty. He claims the problem returned, and his dealer allegedly pointed to the ICCU as the cause, yet no replacement was offered.

Williams says his leased 2025 EV6 entered limp mode after a loud bang, requiring a tow to the dealer. After battery charging, software updates, and eventually a battery replacement failed to solve things, the ICCU was reportedly replaced in March 2026.

The lawsuit also cites owner complaints involving charging plug damage during home charging and dashboard warnings like “Check Electric Vehicle System” and “12-volt battery voltage low stop safely.”

Importantly, none of the defendants (Hyundai, Kia, etc) has responded to the suit. Typically in cases like this, the automaker(s) will file a motion to dismiss but it may be several days or longer before the next step in the process takes place.

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order that disallowed immigrants claiming asylum at the southern border.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that immigration law allows those fleeing persecution to apply for asylum. 

“Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” Judge J. Michelle Childs wrote, adding that they upheld a lower court’s ruling.

The three panel judges who heard the case were Childs, Justin R. Walker and Cornelia T.L. Pillard. Walker, a Trump appointee, filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part from the majority.

Childs was appointed by former President Joe Biden and Pillard was appointed by former President Barack Obama. 

“The (Immigration Nationality Act) does not allow the President to remove Plaintiffs under summary removal procedures of his own making,” according to the ruling. “Nor does it allow the Executive to suspend Plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum, deny Plaintiffs’ access to withholding of removal under the INA, or curtail mandatory procedures for adjudicating Plaintiffs’ Convention Against Torture claims.”

The White House did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment. 

“This decision puts an end to the inhumane Trump policy of sending people, including families with little children, back to horrific danger without even a hearing,” American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the appeal, said in a statement. “The court made clear that the president does not have the unilateral power to wipe away all of the asylum laws enacted by Congress.”

One of Trump’s first executive orders suspended entry to the southern border on the grounds that there was an “invasion,” which the administration claimed was a condition that allowed the president to invoke a section of the law to suspend asylum claims.

The executive order is part of Trump’s immigration crackdown, as he aims to conduct mass deportations of immigrants in the interior and cease migration to the U.S. through curbing access to asylum and refugee resettlement. 

In response to the order, immigration advocacy groups filed a class action lawsuit against the Trump administration. The groups who brought the suit were the ACLU, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project.

RAICES, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the Florence Immigrant And Refugee Rights Project provide legal services to immigrants, and argued that Trump’s executive order harms the legal aid work of the individual plaintiffs.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Reserve, Kevin Warsh, vowed Tuesday the central bank would remain “strictly independent” if he’s confirmed to the top spot, even as the president has broadcast his demand for the new Fed chair to lower interest rates.

Warsh, a former Fed board governor, faced questions during his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, as the clock winds down on the term of current Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who is in Trump’s crosshairs.

Trump’s criminal probe into Powell, over a $2.5 billion renovation project at the Fed’s offices, stands in the way of Warsh’s confirmation on the closely divided committee. 

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., maintains he will vote against Warsh’s nomination until Trump directs federal prosecutors to halt their “bogus” investigation into one of his most high-profile political foes.

The Senate Banking Committee is made up of 13 Republicans in the majority, and 11 Democrats in the minority. All Democrats plan to oppose the nomination, and with Tillis, a tied vote means Warsh’s nomination would not advance to the full Senate.

The committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, alleged Trump wants to install a “sock puppet” and “use monetary policies to artificially juice the economy in the short term, and this is his last chance to do that before the November elections.”

Instead of questioning Warsh, Tillis displayed a series of images and figures illustrating the “unfortunate, but legitimate” cost overruns at the Federal Reserve’s Washington, D.C., headquarters. 

“If we put everybody in prison in federal government that had had a budget go over, we’d have to reserve an area roughly the size of Texas for a penal colony,” Tillis said. “… Let’s get rid of this investigation so that I can support your nomination.”

Court action

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, for the District of Columbia, last month blocked the administration’s subpoenas to probe the central bank and Powell, pointing to “a mountain of evidence” that Trump is using the investigation to force Powell to lower interest rates, or resign.

Still, the president has not backed down. One week before Tuesday’s hearing, two investigators from the office of Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, showed up unannounced at the Fed’s construction site, according to details reported by the New York Times.

On more than 100 occasions, according to Boasberg’s order, Trump and his allies have made public statements ridiculing Powell and threatening to fire him if interest rates were not lowered.

Powell’s term expires May 15. During a recent press conference, Powell said he plans to stay on, as permitted by Fed regulations, as chair pro tempore until his successor is confirmed.

If Powell stays on, “well then, I’ll have to fire him,” Trump told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo on April 15. 

A ‘battle-tested’ pick

While Trump’s clash with Powell overshadowed Warsh’s nomination hearing, Republicans largely praised the former board governor, who served from 2006 to 2011.

Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott, R-S.C., said Warsh is “battle-tested” after helping to steer the central bank during the 2008 financial crisis.

“During his first term as governor, he helped our economy through the crisis and restored faith in the economy,”Scott said.

But Democrats questioned Warsh’s ability to remain independent of Trump’s demands, particularly as the president must justify higher costs from tariffs and the Iran war ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, when voters are expected to focus heavily on affordability issues.

Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., asked Warsh, “Do you agree that the American families are struggling right now with affordability?”

Largely laying the blame on post-COVID-19 monetary policy decisions under President Joe Biden, Warsh said the Fed bears “some responsibility for the things that you’ve described, and that the legacy of inflation, what I think is the biggest economic policy error in 40 or 50 years, happened just a few years ago, and we’re still living with the with the remnants of it. I think inflation is less problematic than it was a couple of years ago.”

When Kim pressed whether the Fed should be concerned about spiking fuel and fertilizer costs amid Trump’s continuing war in Iran, Warsh said, “Senator, if my reform agenda, if confirmed, stands for anything, it’s for the central bank, especially the Fed chairman, to stay in its lane.”

Lisa Cook firing

Warren and Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., also invoked Trump’s contested August 2025 firing of Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook, currently under review in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The high court’s oral arguments in January drew a high-profile appearance from Powell. Trump alleged Cook committed financial fraud, but even conservative Supreme Court justices questioned his argument for her firing.

“Will you commit to defending Governor Cook’s tenure as Chairman Powell has done?” Alsobrooks asked.

“Senator, it was a pleasure to meet you in your office, and spend time with you. As I said to you then, I’ll repeat here to the broader committee: If I stand for anything, it’s the Fed should stay in its lane. As I understand that matter, it’s pending before the United States Supreme Court,” Warsh said.

In his opening statement, Warsh defended a president’s right to share opinions on interest rates but told Democratic lawmakers multiple times Tuesday that Trump has not asked him for a commitment.

Following up on an answer Warsh provided earlier during the hearing, Alsobrooks asked, “You said he never — ‘specifically’ is the word you used — demanded that you decrease interest rates. Well, did the president generally suggest this to you as well?”

“I wasn’t trying to be clever. The president never generally or specifically instructed me, or suggested I should commit to any interest rate path whatsoever,” Warsh said.

Voting rights groups launched a legal challenge Tuesday against the Trump administration’s effort to sweep up sensitive data on millions of Americans with the aim of identifying noncitizen voters, arguing that the U.S. Department of Justice is building a dangerous centralized national voter list ahead of the midterm elections in November.

The federal lawsuit, filed in the District of Columbia by the voting rights and civic group Common Cause with help from other organizations, seeks to block the Justice Department from obtaining and analyzing unredacted state voter lists that include driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers. 

The DOJ plans to share the data with the Department of Homeland Security, which operates a powerful computer program that can verify U.S. citizenship. Democratic election officials say the program has wrongly flagged Americans as possible noncitizen voters and could erode faith in election results.

“This is a blatant, partisan power grab designed to cast doubt on the validity of our elections and whose vote should be counted,” Virginia Kase Solomón, Common Cause president and CEO, said in a statement.

The Justice Department has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia for the data. But at least a dozen other states have provided the data, handing the Trump administration information on millions of registered voters. 

The latest lawsuit by Common Cause, with legal representation by the American Civil Liberties Union, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and other voting rights groups, opens a new front in the legal fight against the Trump administration’s campaign for the data. It represents an attempt to halt the administration from using the voter information it’s already obtained — and stop it from collecting more.

The suit asks a court to order the Justice Department to halt any actions to compile, use or disclose sensitive voter data. The groups also wants the DOJ to delete the data already in its possession.

Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming have voluntarily provided, or will turn over, their sensitive voter data, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which has been tracking the Justice Department’s efforts.

Federalization of elections

Since taking office last year, President Donald Trump has moved to assert presidential power over federal elections, which under the U.S. Constitution are run by the states. The president and his allies have framed his moves as necessary to ensure the security of elections by purging noncitizen voters.

Trump issued an executive order a year ago that attempted to impose a nationwide requirement that voters must produce documents proving their citizenship. Federal courts blocked the order. He is also pressuring Congress to pass legislation, the SAVE America Act, containing a similar requirement.

Late last month, Trump signed another executive order clamping down on mail ballots. It directs the U.S. Postal Service to restrict the delivery of ballots and instructs Homeland Security to compile lists of voting-age U.S. citizens in each state, effectively building a national database of voters and would-be voters. Several active lawsuits are challenging the order.

“By attempting to interrogate and exploit voter data for political purposes, President Trump’s DOJ isn’t just threatening the privacy of every American—they are building a system designed to imprison the ballot box and silence millions of eligible voters,” Kase Solomón said. “We won’t stand by while Americans’ rights to privacy and voting are under attack.” 

The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

In other lawsuits, Justice Department lawyers have argued the agency is entitled to voter data under the 1960 Civil Rights Act, a federal law to combat voting discrimination. DOJ lawyers have also denied that the agency is building a nationwide voter list — but they have acknowledged voter data will be sent to Homeland Security for analysis by SAVE, an online tool short for Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements.

SAVE was previously used for one-off searches of individual immigrants to check whether they were eligible for government benefits. The Trump administration last year refashioned it into a program capable of checking the citizenship of voters. Some GOP states have begun voluntarily using SAVE to scan their state voter rolls for potential noncitizens.

“That’s how we are going to ensure that they have the proper identification as to each and every voter,” Justice Department Voting Section acting Chief Eric Neff said in federal court in Rhode Island in March, according to a transcript.

DOJ losing streak

Federal judges have so far uniformly ruled against the Justice Department’s efforts to force states to turn over voter data. Federal judges in five states — California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and Rhode Island — have dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuits.

The Justice Department has appealed some of the rulings. Oral arguments in those cases are set for mid-May.

The DOJ’s most recent court loss came last week in Rhode Island from Judge Mary McElroy, a Trump appointee. In a 14-page order, she ruled that federal voting laws — including the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act and the Civil Rights Act — don’t empower the Justice Department to demand state voter data.

“Neither the NVRA nor HAVA authorize DOJ to conduct the kind of fishing expedition it seeks here,” McElroy wrote.

Republican lawmakers want a lawsuit challenging the state’s school funding formula as unconstitutional dismissed, according to court filings. 

The lawsuit challenging Wisconsin’s current school funding system was filed in February by Law Forward, a public interest law firm, in Eau Claire Circuit Court. The progressive legal group filed it on behalf of a group of school districts, parents, teachers, students and two advocacy organizations, the Wisconsin PTA and the Wisconsin Public Education Network (WPEN). The suit argues that the state Legislature is not fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide a “sound basic education” under the current school funding formula.

GOP lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) and members of the Joint Finance Committee, called the lawsuit “meritless” in their filing and said that the majority of questions asked in the lawsuit have been previously answered in previous court cases, including in the state Supreme Court’s Vince v. Voight decision. That 2000 lawsuit found that the state’s school funding formula was constitutional. 

“For all of plaintiffs’ sky-is-falling assertions, the school finance system that plaintiffs challenge here is the same system that the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld against similar (indeed, mostly identical) constitutional claims in Vincent v. Voight,” the filing states. “That system, Vincent explained, complies with the Wisconsin Constitution because it affords every student the opportunity to obtain a constitutionally adequate education. The Supreme Court reached this conclusion notwithstanding various complaints relating to test scores, school facilities, teacher staffing, and the like — complaints that are materially indistinguishable from those that Plaintiffs raise here.”

The lawmakers said the plaintiffs in the suit are asking the judiciary to take over the Legislature’s constitutional role in determining funding for primary and secondary education, even as the Legislature has fulfilled its constitutional responsibilities by enacting a comprehensive school finance system for the state’s public schools. 

The new lawsuit argues that declines in student proficiency for Wisconsin’s reading and math test scores are the result of declining investments in schools. It also argues that the growth of the state’s school voucher programs, which use state money to cover the cost of private school tuition, have contributed to declining funding for Wisconsin public schools.

The lawsuit asks the court for a declaration that the Legislature hasn’t fulfilled and cannot “shirk” its constitutional obligation to fund schools at a sufficiently high level to “ensure that every Wisconsin student has an equal opportunity to obtain a sound basic education that equips them for their roles as citizens and enables them to succeed economically and personally in a tuition free public school where the character of instruction is as uniform as practicable.” It calls for the current funding system to be ruled invalid.

Jeff Mandell, co-founder of Law Forward, called the motion to dismiss a “predictable attempt to avoid accountability” in a statement.

“We filed this lawsuit because families, educators, and communities across Wisconsin are seeing firsthand that the current system is not meeting that promise — forcing schools to rely on referendums, widening inequities, and leaving too many students without the resources they need,” Mandell said. “We maintain that this case deserves to be heard and are confident that the court will agree.”

The lawmakers also argue in the filing that the five school districts named in the suit, including the Adams-Friendship Area School District, the School District of Beloit, the Eau Claire Area School District, the Green Bay Area Public School District and the Necedah Area School District, should be dismissed from the case, arguing that they lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of the school finance system as a political subdivision of the state.

The lawmakers argue that the issues the plaintiffs pointed to in the lawsuit are not sufficient evidence of the state not upholding its constitutional obligation.

The lawsuit specifically points to the increasing reliance of Wisconsin school districts on asking voters to help them keep up with operating costs by increasing local property taxes through ballot measures (with varying results) as well as the decline in the state’s special education reimbursement rate.

The state currently picks up a little more than one-third of special education costs, despite the state budget promising to cover 42% of costs this year. The Necedah Area School District, which recently failed to pass a  referendum in April, has diverted all of its revenue from its previous operational referendum requests, about $6.6 million, to its special education fund. Meanwhile, the special education reimbursement rate for private voucher schools is 90%. 

“The Wisconsin Constitution makes clear that localities are expected to cover a significant portion of the cost of funding public schools,” the Republicans’ filing states. “That some school districts have had to use some of their own general education funds to cover the costs of special education is not constitutionally significant in the absence of any plausible allegations that any student has been deprived of the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education. And as for districts’ need to use referenda to exceed the revenue limits here, this too is constitutionally irrelevant.” 

The Legislature appropriated more than $7 billion in school aid in the 2024–25 fiscal year, the Republican filing noted. 

Democratic lawmakers on the Joint Finance Committee submitted their own filing, which was supportive of the lawsuit. 

“A constitutional promise is not optional,” the lawmakers wrote. “Wisconsin children cannot receive one level of educational opportunity in communities that can raise and pass local referenda and another in communities that cannot.”

The lawsuit also lays out how the state’s private-school choice system, which was launched in the 1990s and has grown exponentially over the years, has contributed to the erosion in  funding for public schools. There are four distinct school voucher programs in the state: the Wisconsin Parental Choice Program, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, the Racine Parental Choice Program and the Special Needs Scholarship Program. Wisconsin is paying about $700 million this year for more than 60,000 students to participate in the voucher programs.

Republican lawmakers rejected the assertion that the choice programs are related to the lawsuit’s claims.

“This is a baseless attempt to tar these longstanding, alternative educational offerings that are both highly effective and extremely popular across the State,” the lawmakers stated. 

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty on behalf of parents and School Choice Wisconsin Action are also seeking to intervene in the case as are parents represented by EdChoice Legal Advocates, a school choice litigation firm.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Department of Justice’s stated reason for obtaining sensitive personal data on millions of voters masks the Trump administration’s true intention for obtaining state voter lists, Michigan’s top election official asserted in federal appeals court Monday.

Attorneys for Michigan Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson made the allegation in a brief in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The argument reflects a concern broadly held among Democratic state election officials that the Trump administration wants to compile voter data in an effort to influence the upcoming midterm elections. 

The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump, is suing 29 states for refusing to provide voter information. It says it needs the data to evaluate efforts to clean and maintain voter rolls, including whether noncitizens are registered to vote.

But Benson’s brief says that “appears to be a pretext for improper purposes.”

Michigan and other states argue the Trump administration is instead effectively building a nationwide voter registration list — a move not authorized under the 1960 Civil Rights Act, a federal law to combat voting discrimination that the Justice Department has cited in demanding states turn over voter data.

“Collecting Michigan’s voter data to conduct its own list maintenance and to use Michigan’s list as part of creating a national voter file is not encompassed within the purpose stated in DOJ’s demand, which is simply ‘to ascertain Michigan’s compliance with the list maintenance requirements’” of federal election laws, Benson’s brief says.

“Moreover, creating a national voter file of U.S. Citizens is beyond any purpose contemplated by the (Civil Rights Act).”

After U.S. District Court Judge Hala Jarbou ruled in February that the Justice Department isn’t entitled to Michigan’s unredacted voter list containing driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers, the department appealed to the 6th Circuit.

Trump priority

Over the past year, Trump has attempted to exercise greater power over federal elections, which, under the U.S. Constitution, are run by the states.

“Trump does not have the authority to create a Trump voter list,” Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat whom the Justice Department is suing for not providing voter data, said in an interview earlier this month.

Studies have shown noncitizen voting is extremely rare, though Trump has long fixated on the prospect of noncitizen voting and other forms of election fraud. Last year, Trump signed an executive order that would have unilaterally required voters to provide documents proving their citizenship. The order was struck down in court, but Trump is pressuring the U.S. Senate to pass the SAVE America Act, which would implement similar proof of citizenship rules.

Michigan state officials and other critics of the Justice Department’s voter data effort point to actions by Trump and remarks by a DOJ attorney as evidence that the Trump administration is already compiling a national voter list.

Trump’s recent executive order to restrict mail-in ballots directs the Department of Homeland Security to build lists of voting-age citizens in each state and then share those lists with state officials. Homeland Security operates a powerful computer system, called SAVE, that can verify citizenship by checking names against information in federal databases.

And at a federal court hearing in Rhode Island in late March, Justice Department Voting Section Acting Chief Eric Neff said his department intends to share voter lists with Homeland Security, according to a transcript. He said DOJ and DHS have already entered into a use agreement to govern the sharing of data, though he didn’t detail its requirements.

Mail ballot order an ‘iceberg’ to DOJ case

A DOJ attorney, James Tucker, has denied any effort to create a national voter file. 

“There is not going to be a national voter registration database,” Tucker said at a hearing in Maine on March 26 — less than a week before Trump signed the executive order.

But David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, likened the Justice Department’s litigation strategy to a legal Titanic and the executive order to an iceberg: The order effectively creating a nationwide voter list could sink a strategy that denies such a goal exists.

“The DOJ … has been trying to assure the courts that this data is not going to be used to create a national voter list,” Becker said during a press briefing this month.

The Justice Department didn’t respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

Civil Rights Act argued

The Justice Department has so far failed to persuade any federal judges that it’s entitled to state voter data. Judges have dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuits against California, Massachusetts, Michigan and Oregon. 

At least a dozen states, all Republican led, have voluntarily provided their voter lists. The Justice Department has also reached a settlement agreement with one state, Oklahoma, to obtain its data. 

When Jarbou, a Trump appointee, dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit for Michigan’s voter roll, she ruled that the Civil Rights Act doesn’t require the disclosure of the information. The law, signed by President Dwight Eisenhower, empowered federal officials to investigate state and local discrimination against Black voters.

The law requires states to preserve election records for at least 22 months after a federal election, including any documents that come into the possession of an election official. Jarbou wrote in her decision that the state’s voter registration list is created by election officials but isn’t a document, such as a voter registration application, that comes into their possession.

When the Justice Department filed its brief in March, it argued that Jarbou misinterpreted the Civil Rights Act. “The CRA’s text … does not exclude self-generated documents,” the department’s brief says.

The Justice Department’s appeal of the Michigan loss has advanced the furthest, with state officials filing their brief on Monday. The DOJ has pushed for quick timelines in the appeals, arguing that court rulings are needed ahead of the midterms to ensure the fairness of elections.

Local officials back states

Regardless, 18 local election officials from across the country, including seven in Michigan, on Monday filed a brief in the case arguing that the Justice Department hasn’t provided a legitimate basis to obtain election records under the Civil Rights Act.

As election misinformation has proliferated in recent years, local election officials face increasing requests for information, the group wrote. They are accustomed to providing public voter registration information, with steps in place to exclude sensitive, nonpublic data.

Courts act as a “backstop” to enforce bans on disclosing sensitive information in response to records requests from the public, the local election officials argue.

“Courts should perform that same function for requests for records under the CRA,” the group said.

For something as expensive and high-tech as the Cadillac Lyriq, buyers probably expect a few software bugs here and there. Maybe a glitchy screen, a frozen app, or a charger that occasionally needs a second try. According to a new lawsuit against General Motors, some owners are dealing with something much worse: SUVs that suddenly become completely unusable.

A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington claims the Cadillac Lyriq suffers from widespread electrical, software, and battery-management issues that can leave the electric SUV unable to start, charge, or drive. In other words, the lawsuit alleges that some Lyriqs effectively become very expensive driveway ornaments, or, in tech terms, bricks. We doubt owners find much comfort in that, regardless of whatever styling drew them in.

More: Thousands Of Cadillac EVs Recalled Over A Feature Meant To Impress

According to the lawsuit seen by Carcomplaints, Washington resident Wendy Cochran and Florida resident Charlene Riddle both say their Lyriqs suffered what’s described as “catastrophic electrical system failure.” Riddle claims GM told her a software fix was required, but that no fix was available at the time. Cochran, meanwhile, says her SUV became unusable, leaving her with lost time, added costs, and a vehicle now worth less than she paid.

Importantly, the filling calls into question failures with the Lyriq’s electrical architecture, battery-management modules, software systems, and vehicle control networks. All of those systems have to constantly work with one another. The plaintiffs point out that if one fails, it can cascade throughout the rest of the system and effectively brick the car.

One important piece of the puzzle is that the lawsuit claims that GM was aware about this issue and put the cars on the market anyway. The lawsuit alleges that the company had access to pre-production testing, engineering reports, warranty claims, dealership repair records, and consumer complaints, all of which pointed to the same issue. Even so, GM allegedly continued marketing the Lyriq as a premium, reliable luxury EV.

At this point, the ball is in GM’s court. It can respond by denying the allegations or, more likely, it could ask the judge to dismiss the case altogether. Generally, the next move comes within three weeks of the initial filing so we should have more news on the case soon.

Update: There’s now video of the Houston Cybertruck crash. Footage shared by Hilliard Law, which represents the woman in the lawsuit, shows the electric truck, reportedly operating in self-driving mode, failing to follow a right-hand curve and continuing straight toward an overpass barrier. The driver attempts to intervene, but it is already too late, and the impact is severe. She is now suing Tesla for $1 million, alleging the system did not perform as promised.

'TERRIFYING': Dashcam video shows the moment a Tesla Cybertruck, allegedly operating in self-driving mode, nearly sent a Houston mom and her infant off a bridge before violently crashing into an overpass barrier.

The woman claims she suffered multiple injuries from the incident… pic.twitter.com/DgcnHp2FtZ

— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 17, 2026

Tesla’s Full-Self Driving (Supervised) system has placed advanced semi-autonomous capability in the hands of thousands of owners across the United States. The technology remains one of the most closely watched developments in the industry. Yet despite its promise, the system is still far from flawless, and according to a recent lawsuit filed against Tesla, it can also be dangerous.

The suit, filed in Harris County Court in Houston, Texas, alleges that Tesla Cybertruck owner Justine Saint Amour was using the FSD system in August last year while traveling along the 69 Eastex Freeway. As the electric pickup approached a Y-shaped junction near the Houston Metro 256 Eastex Park & Ride, the vehicle’s onboard systems should have followed the right-hand curve of the freeway.

FSD Navigation Error Alleged

Instead, the lawsuit claims the Tesla attempted to continue straight ahead toward a concrete barrier. The driver reportedly took control just before impact but was unable to avoid the obstacle, with the Cybertruck striking the barrier head-on. A 1-year-old child was also in the back seat at the time but was not injured.

Read: Tesla On FSD Suddenly Swerves And Crashes Into A Tree, Claims Driver

The impact reportedly left the woman with two herniated discs in her lower back, a herniated disc in her neck, sprained wrist tendons, and neuropathy. Chron reports that dashcam footage captured the crash, showing the Cybertruck attempting to negotiate the curve at the interchange but ultimately hitting the barriers.

Camera Only System Criticized

An image taken after the crash shows that the front of the blacked-out Cybertruck took a serious hit, and that the front bumper shattered, leaving pieces of bodywork strewn across the road.

The lawsuit further alleges that Tesla’s decision to rely exclusively on a camera-based system for its self-driving technology, rather than incorporating radar or LiDAR sensors, contributed to the crash. It also claims Elon Musk is “an aggressive and irresponsible salesman” with a history of “making dangerous design choices.”

“Tesla’s decisions made Justine’s accident inevitable,” Saint Amour’s lawyer, Bob Hilliard, told Chron. “This company wants drivers to believe and trust their life on a lie: that the vehicle can self-drive and that it can do so safely. It can’t, and it doesn’t.”

The lawsuit accuses Tesla of negligence and seeks more than $1 million in damages.

Honda’s all-electric Prologue has found itself under legal scrutiny following reports of some rather odd drivetrain noises. Not long after the company warned US dealers that certain 2024–2026 Prologue models might require repairs due to clicking or ratcheting-type sounds from the drive axles, a lawsuit followed. Owners say the noises can linger even after a trip, sometimes more than one, to the dealership.

A class action lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania names two Prologue owners who say their SUVs developed unusual noises from the front axle. One of them, Ashley Custer, leased a 2024 Prologue in May 2025 and soon began hearing the sounds, prompting a trip to the dealer with just 4,039 miles (6,500 km) on the odometer.

Read: She Expected 200K Miles From Her V6, Now She’s Suing Honda

After she reported a creaking noise when turning, the Honda dealer replaced the CV axles. That, however, didn’t solve the problem. Custer returned to the dealership in November, where she was told no repair was currently available. An associated repair order reportedly noted that she was “experiencing the suspension noise that we are familiar with and have seen on other Prologues,” adding that it is a “known issue that Honda is working on.”

She took her Prologue to a dealer last month, but was again told that no repairs were available. Similarly, the second plaintiff, Jorge Santiago, drives a 2024 Prologue and started noticing popping and clicking sounds shortly after taking delivery. Despite the car also being taken to a dealership, it hasn’t been fixed.

What’s The Fix?

In December, Honda issued a Tech Line to dealerships, asking them to verify the noise of faulty Prologue models, inspect for damage, and make any necessary repairs. However, the lawsuit claims that the fix is pointless as Honda is simply using the same defective front axles and components. As such, the noise continues, even after multiple dealership visits.

The lawsuit claims that Honda was aware of the “abnormal and anxiety-inducing noises” when it first started selling the all-electric Prologue.