WASHINGTON — Arizona coffee roaster Gabe Hagen is wondering if he’ll ever recoup the tens of thousands of dollars he paid in tariffs to import beans from the world’s major coffee-growing regions in South America, Africa and the Indo-Pacific.

Weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs as illegal, Hagen is among an army of small business owners who are unsure if they’ll be made whole after a year of increasing costs and uncertainty.

“I’m in the process right now trying to consolidate all of my invoices … because I need the money back — if they’re going to give it back,” Hagen told States Newsroom in an interview.

“A pallet of coffee would cost us 5 to 6 to $7,000 if we had a bag or two of really high-grade in there. Post tariffs, our cheapest pallet was around $8,000, and it went anywhere from 8 to $10,000 or $11,000 per pallet of coffee,” he said. 

How the government will refund the roughly $166 billion in tariffs Trump triggered under a 1970s emergency economic powers statute is slowly coming to light in court documents. 

Nearly 2,000 companies filed suit for tariff refunds in the U.S. Court of International Trade, with many lining up even before the highly anticipated 6-3 Supreme Court decision.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s four-step refund process for businesses is anywhere from 40% to 80% complete, depending on the step, according to a court-mandated update filed March 12 with the Court of International Trade. 

Justices leave it to the lower courts

The justices, not giving guidance on refunds, left the matter to the lower courts in their Feb. 20 ruling that invalidated the sweeping tariffs Trump unilaterally imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. 

The president declared various emergencies under the statute during his first year in office. 

From fentanyl smuggling, to trade imbalances, to political disputes, he used each declared crisis to impose steep taxes on imports. 

Shifting sometimes day to day, tariffs reached as high as 50% on Brazilian and Indian goods after Trump declared emergencies over the prosecution of a political ally and over the use of Russian oil, respectively.

U.S. importers saw tariffs spike as high as 145% on Chinese goods during a tit-for-tat trade war sparked by Trump’s declaration of a trade imbalance emergency. The duties largely settled at a roughly 50% effective rate on several products after the trade war and negotiations with the world’s second-largest economy. 

The Trump administration has since sought different pathways to collect tariffs, including almost immediately instituting temporary import taxes under a different 1970s trade statute. 

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has also commenced widespread investigations into dozens of the largest U.S. trading partners that could trigger new tariffs, depending on findings.

‘Survived, but barely’

The rollercoaster ride was enough to almost bring down Busy Baby, a Minnesota-based baby product company that manufactures several patented designs in China.

Busy Baby owner Beth Benike, who shared her experience with States Newsroom in February, is now suing U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott and U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to recoup money lost.

Matthew Platkin, former New Jersey attorney general and Benike’s lawyer, said Benike’s business “survived, but barely.” 

“She had to keep merchandise overseas because she couldn’t afford to pay to bring them here. And when she didn’t get product, she wasn’t getting paid, she wasn’t making money,” Platkin said in an interview with States Newsroom.  

“She had opportunities lined up for expansion. She was going to hire new folks. That didn’t happen, and that was because of one thing: the president’s illegal tariffs,” he said.

Benike’s complaint does not specify a dollar amount, but Platkin said, “It’s substantial, especially for a business of her size.”

“We’re still going through and assessing the full impact of the tariffs on her, but rest assured, even for a small business, it’s tens of thousands of dollars at a minimum,” Platkin said.

“The federal government should just refund these folks their money with interest, period. Like, this shouldn’t even require litigation. They were caught taking illegal tariffs from millions of businesses,” he said.

$166 billion collected

Federal Judge Richard Eaton, who sits on the bench for the Court of International Trade, ordered administration customs officials in early March to stop collecting the tariffs deemed illegal under IEEPA, and to recalculate any past duties that included them.

Eaton granted the March 5 order in the tariff refund lawsuit brought by Atmus Filtration, a Nashville, Tennessee-based company. 

The judge, however, outlined that orders in the Court of International Trade are “universal” for all tariff refunds owed — meaning the trade cases are not subject to the Supreme Court’s 2025 finding in a separate immigration case that universal rulings are impermissible.

Businesses the size of Busy Baby to behemoths like Costco and FedEx have paid tariffs to the U.S. government. Many, but not all, have sued.

Customs officials, in a March 6 court filing, declared any refund process would take at least 45 days to be functional. According to the filing, as of early March the agency had collected approximately $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs from 330,000 American importers.

Alfredo Carrillo Obregon, research associate for trade policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said as the clock ticks on tariff refunds, interest is accruing.

“The refunds are not necessarily coming soon and that has big implications, obviously, for taxpayers, but I think most importantly for the companies that are relying on this money to literally keep their doors open,” Obregon said.

He and colleagues calculated the government’s interest payments on the refunds owed totals about $700 million more with each passing month.

Barton O’Brien, who told States Newsroom last month his dog apparel company ate the tariff costs rather than raise prices, said he’s “certainly not counting on a refund anytime soon” as the administration “seems pretty dead set” on not giving them.

“I expect they will drag out the process in the courts for as long as they can,” he said in a written response to States Newsroom on March 9. “If we get one, great… It’s a bonus. But still won’t cover the hole left by the tariffs.” 

“Also, as a small business we’re not in a position to fight the administration, so I’m happy to sit back and let … other Fortune 500 companies with an army of lawyers fight this one out on our behalf.  If they win, we’ll all get refunds,” said O’Brien, who works with manufacturers in China and India.

‘Do the right thing’

Shawn Phetteplace, national campaigns director for the advocacy group Main Street Alliance, said his organization will continue to apply legal and public pressure to ensure small businesses recoup the money.

“I would just say that the administration should do the right thing and return the money, and they also should stop trying to find cute, creative ways to institute new tariffs that are also going to be illegal and struck down,” he said.

Two dozen Democratic-led states have already sued the administration in the Court of International Trade over the new tariffs Trump announced immediately after his Supreme Court loss. 

The lawsuit, led by Oregon, also includes Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

Small businesses and Democratic-led states were instrumental in the Supreme Court’s February decision striking down Trump’s IEEPA tariffs.

States Newsroom reached out to the Trump administration for comment but did not receive a reply.

WASHINGTON — A group of food stamp recipients sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture this week over its efforts to prohibit the benefits from being used to purchase certain non-nutritious items.

Five consumers enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, brought the lawsuit March 11 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The recipients hail from Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia and are challenging the waivers in those states. 

President Donald Trump’s administration has so far approved waivers in 22 states — part of its Make America Healthy Again agenda — that restrict which items recipients of the federal food assistance program that helps 42 million people can buy with their benefits. 

The restrictions, which range from candy to sugar-sweetened beverages and other processed foods, differ throughout states. 

The agency has described the waivers as a “key step in ensuring that taxpayer dollars provide nutritious options that improve health outcomes within SNAP.” 

But the lawsuit claims that the “practical effect” of the waivers is “to destabilize food access for every SNAP participant in the affected states.” 

The lawsuit argues that the waivers “impose ambiguous and scientifically untethered product restrictions that vary not only by state but, in some instances, by store location.” 

The lawsuit also claims that people with chronic illnesses are “losing access to products they need to manage blood sugar or sustain diets they need to maintain baseline health care needs.” 

“The challenged waivers also create confusion and conflict at the point of sale by depriving SNAP recipients of clear notice about which products remain eligible for purchase,” the lawsuit notes. 

The SNAP recipients are represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of low-income families, individuals and communities, along with the law firm Shinder Cantor Lerner. 

A spokesperson for USDA said Friday the agency would not comment on pending litigation.  

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.

WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee Tuesday filed a lawsuit in federal court aiming to force the Trump administration to admit if it plans to send armed federal law enforcement or U.S. troops to polling locations in the upcoming midterm elections. 

The suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia charges that 11 Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, requests submitted to the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense by the DNC in October have gone unanswered, a violation of public records law. 

“To ensure that the American people obtain timely knowledge of potential threats to free and fair elections and to enable the DNC to take appropriate action to ensure voting rights are protected, the DNC now seeks this Court’s aid to enforce FOIA requirements,” according to the suit. 

The suit was assigned to federal Judge Beryl A. Howell, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

Voting machines

The suit details how the FOIA requests were filed after comments from President Donald Trump to the New York Times that he regretted not using the U.S. military to seize voting machines after he lost the 2020 presidential election. 

“These and many other actions have raised serious concerns among voters across the country that the President will order armed federal agents or troops to polling places, drop boxes, and election offices, … and will send FBI agents or Justice Department officials to interfere with the orderly administration and certification of elections,” according to the complaint.

The suit also cites comments from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt that she “couldn’t guarantee” that federal law enforcement officers would not be at polling locations this November. 

“Donald Trump wants to bully and cheat his way through a midterm election that he knows Republicans will lose, but we won’t let him,” DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement. “The DNC will stand on the side of voters and use every tool in our arsenal to stop voter suppression and intimidation before it can even begin.”

Are there records?

It’s also possible that no records exist.

Congressional Democrats have pressed Trump officials during hearings on plans to send agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to polling locations. 

Both heads of those agencies, ICE acting director Todd Lyons and CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott, said there were no plans to send any of their agents or officers to polling locations. 

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who is leaving her post at the end of month and being replaced by Oklahoma GOP Sen. Markwayne Mullin, was also pressed by Democrats. 

She said there were no plans for ICE agents, but also asked Democrats if they plan for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, something that is already illegal and rarely occurs. 

But during the hearing, Noem would not commit to issuing a directive barring immigration agents from polling locations. 

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.

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear a significant climate lawsuit in which oil companies are seeking to avoid being tried in state court. 

The fate of several dozen climate lawsuits brought against oil companies by state and local governments could hinge on the decision, which could determine whether the cases can be tried in state court. The suits seek to force oil companies to pay billions of dollars to help governments grapple with the costs of climate-related damages, such as natural disasters, rising sea levels and drought.

Exxon Mobil Corp. and Suncor Energy Inc., which have been sued by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, argue the case should be dismissed because they followed national regulations when extracting and selling their products. Oil companies have claimed that federal rules around greenhouse gas emissions should preempt efforts to sue them under state laws.

Some oil companies have previously attempted to have climate cases removed to federal courts, petitions that have been denied by federal circuit courts and the Supreme Court.

But the roughly three dozen state and local governments that have sued oil companies in recent years argue that the cases belong in state court. Many of the lawsuits cite state consumer protection and fraud laws, along with evidence that the companies knew about the risks of climate change while downplaying it in public.

“We had hoped that the Supreme Court would let the decision of the lower courts rest, but we’re also confident in our case and looking forward for the chance to have it heard,” Boulder Mayor Aaron Brockett said in an interview. “I do think it’s a significant case. If the motion to dismiss is not granted, then we can get into discovery and learn exactly what Exxon and Suncor knew and when they knew it.”

The states of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont, as well as many more cities, counties and tribes, have all filed lawsuits against oil companies over climate change. 

If the Supreme Court were to rule that the Boulder case is preempted by federal law, it would be a major win for oil companies, who have long claimed that national regulations such as the Clean Air Act should supersede state laws. Such a ruling could also prevent many of the other cases from moving forward in state courts.

The case could also be complicated by the Trump administration’s recent repeal of the endangerment finding, the scientific determination that underpinned the federal government’s regulations of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. With the feds stepping back from climate regulation, some observers believe the oil companies will have a harder time claiming that state lawsuits fall under the scope of federal policy.

In a written statement to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prior to the repeal of the endangerment finding, a group of investor-owned electric utilities raised that concern. The Edison Electric Institute, in its letter to the agency, said that federal greenhouse gas emissions helped “protect the power sector” from legal claims by “displacing” lawsuits over companies’ role in contributing to climate change. 

“Should EPA remove its regulation of [greenhouse gases], it increases the likelihood that environmental non-governmental organizations, advocacy groups, citizen groups, and other parties will seek to bring new tort suits and other litigation to test the bounds of continued [Clean Air Act] displacement of federal common law,” the group wrote.

Editor’s Note: The story has been corrected to reflect that the Supreme Court in 2023 denied oil companies’ attempts to remove the case to federal court.

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org. 

A coalition of public health and environmental groups filed a suit Wednesday challenging the Trump administration’s recent finding that the Environmental Protection Agency could not regulate climate-warming greenhouse gases.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and President Donald Trump announced last week the administration was finalizing a repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding, which declared the agency could regulate greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from vehicle emissions, because climate change posed a danger to human health.

The 17 groups who jointly filed the suit Wednesday include the American Public Health Association, Clean Wisconsin, Union of Concerned Scientists, Earthjustice and Natural Resources Defense Council. 

‘Required by law to protect us’

Their two-page filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit does not detail any of the groups’ legal arguments against the repeal, but lawyers and officials for the groups said the EPA was legally bound, under the Clean Air Act, to protect people from greenhouse gas emissions. 

“They are required by law to protect us from air pollution that endangers public health and welfare,” Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the CEO of the American Public Health Association, said on a video call with reporters. “And that includes greenhouse gases that are driving climate change.”

The law requires challenges to new nationwide agency actions on emissions to be filed in the D.C. Circuit.

In an email, EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch said the agency had reviewed the endangerment finding, the Clean Air Act and related court decisions, including “robust analysis” of recent Supreme Court decisions. The agency concluded it did not have authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

“Unlike our predecessors, the Trump EPA is committed to following the law exactly as it is written and as Congress intended—not as others might wish it to be,” Hirsch said. 

“In the absence of such authority, the Endangerment Finding is not valid, and EPA cannot retain the regulations that resulted from it,” she continued. “EPA is bound by the laws established by Congress, including under the CAA. Congress never intended to give EPA authority to impose GHG regulations for cars and trucks.”

Emissions are pollutants, opponents say

But the groups said the EPA’s reasoning ignored that the agency has long regulated emissions as part of its mandate to protect clear air. The omission of the term “greenhouse gases” in the Clean Air Act is “a manufactured problem” by opponents of regulation, Hana Vizcarra, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, said.

“The Clean Air Act was intended to cover air pollutants, full stop. Air pollutants include greenhouse gases,” she said. “This argument that Congress needs to do something different to be able to regulate greenhouse gases… it’s just a way to avoid the issue and avoid regulation.”

The matter is “settled law,” the groups said, as federal courts have affirmed and reaffirmed the EPA’s power to regulate emissions.

A 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case established that the Clean Air Act “was unambiguous” in authorizing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants, Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney at NRDC, said. 

That decision led to the EPA’s so-called endangerment finding two years later, during President Barack Obama’s first year in office.

Attorneys general likely to weigh in

Wednesday’s challenge will likely be consolidated with other challenges, including those from “blue-state attorneys general,” Hankins said.

In the announcement last week, Trump said the endangerment finding, and the tailpipe emissions standards that relied on it, had dragged down the automotive sector and the broader economy nationwide.

The administration has said the move will save Americans more than $1 trillion by reducing regulations.

The repeal’s opponents, though, said Wednesday that projection ignored more than $100 billion in additional costs American drivers would see if fuel efficiency standards are relaxed or the enormous public health costs from worsened air quality and increased climate risks.

Chinese juggernaut BYD has expanded rapidly across global markets in a remarkably short time, positioning itself as one of the world’s largest car manufacturers. Yet despite its international reach, it has so far been unable to enter the world’s second-largest new car market: the United States. The main obstacle has been import tariffs, but BYD is now pushing back.

Eager to establish a foothold in the US market with its passenger vehicles, four BYD subsidiaries based in the United States have filed suit against the federal government.

Read: China’s EV Boom Is Cooling, And The Big Names Are Feeling It

The case, brought before the US Court of International Trade, challenges tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The plaintiffs include BYD America LLC, BYD Coach & Bus LLC, BYD Energy LLC, and BYD Motors LLC.

The lawsuit names not only the federal government but also officials from the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, the Office of the US Trade Representative, and the Treasury Department.

It argues that these agencies exceeded the authority granted to them under the IEEPA statute and contends that the resulting tariff orders are legally invalid.

Tariffs Under Fire

In addition, the lawsuit specifically challenges nine executive orders and amendments issued since February 2025, including tariffs at the borders with Mexico and Canada, as well as tariffs targeting China and related to fentanyl.

The Chinese car manufacturer is seeking permanent injunctions against these measures and wants refunds for all IEEPA tariffs collected, in addition to interest and reasonable litigation costs.

While it may sound like a long shot for BYD to try and get these tariffs overthrown, its efforts aren’t without precedent. The lawsuit cites the case of New York-based wine importer V.O.S. Selections, which successfully sued the US government over tariffs, arguing that the US President lacks authority to impose them, even under the IEEPA framework.

Already On American Soil

Though it may surprise many American consumers, BYD already maintains a manufacturing presence in the United States. Its 550,000 square-foot facility in Lancaster, California, produces hundreds of electric buses and employs roughly 500 workers.

Getting the tariffs thrown out wouldn’t just help this complex, but also open the door for BYD to sell cars in the United States, perhaps importing them from factories in Canada and Mexico.

Could This Open the Floodgates?

Sun Xiaohong, secretary-general of the automotive branch of the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products, told Global Times that “BYD’s move follows a growing trend of companies using legal channels to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.”

While the case still faces legal hurdles, Sun told the outlet that it could set an important precedent for other Chinese companies looking to assert their rights through formal channels. He also argues that letting automakers like BYD in could benefit US buyers by adding more affordable EV options to a market that’s only getting more competitive.

Tesla has been hit with yet another lawsuit related to its electrically powered doors. Last week, the mother of a 20-year-old man who died following a collision in a 2021 Tesla Model Y filed a lawsuit against the automaker. The complaint was submitted to federal court in Massachusetts.

According to the filing, Samuel Tremblett was still alive after crashing his Model Y into a tree along Route 138 in Easton, a small town just south of Boston. He managed to dial 911 from inside the car, but a transcript of the call reveals he was unable to open the doors as fire began to engulf the car.

Trapped And Unable To Escape

“I’m stuck in a car crash,” Tremblett said on the call, no doubt in a frenzied state. “I can’t get out, please help me. I can’t breathe…It’s on fire…I’m going to die.”

Read: Families Claim Tesla Door Handles Trapped Teens In Burning Cybertruck

Emergency crews were dispatched to the scene, but they couldn’t extinguish the blaze fast enough to save the young man. According to local media, fire responders heard four explosions from the Model Y within the first 10 minutes at the scene. It took four hours before the inferno was put out.

The lawsuit states that Tremblett suffered “catastrophic thermal” injuries as well as smoke inhalation. His body was found in the back seat of the Model Y. According to the complaint, he was unable to open the doors after the crash and succumbed to the fire before help could reach him.

How Tesla Doors May Fail

The lawsuit claims that the electronic exterior door handles on the Tesla Model Y may fail to open during a crash, making it impossible to access the vehicle from outside. In addition, the suite says that the interior mechanical door release is not clearly marked and may be difficult to locate.

This is especially problematic in the rear, where the emergency release is hidden beneath a plastic panel in the door pocket. It’s a simple cable, and many Model Y owners and/or passengers may not even realize it’s there.

The lawsuit cites 17 incidents, going back to 2016, in which Tesla reportedly received complaints of both adults and children becoming trapped inside vehicles during thermal runaway events.

Growing Regulatory Pressure

A recent report from Bloomberg says that at least 15 people in the US have been killed in crashes involving Tesla vehicles where the doors couldn’t be opened. Concerns over the operation of these electronic door handles have recently prompted a ban in China, and it’s possible that other countries could follow suit.

In the US, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced in September that it is investigating potential defects in some Model Y vehicles. These cases involve incidents where the external door handles allegedly failed following collisions.

Meanwhile, a US lawmaker has proposed legislation that would require manual door releases in new vehicles and provide first responders with reliable access when power is lost.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on June 17, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic proposal Thursday to sue the Trump administration over allegations that it did not fully release the Epstein files, as mandated under a law unanimously approved by senators and signed by the president nearly three months ago.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., asked for unanimous consent on a resolution compelling the Republican-led Senate to challenge President Donald Trump in court to release more records from the government’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died in 2019 awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal defense attorney, said Jan. 30 that the department had finished complying with the new law after a final release of 3 million pages, containing 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. In total, the department released about 3.5 million records since the law’s passage.

The latest tranche revealed a global network of numerous men in powerful positions in communication with Epstein.

Late and redacted

The legal deadline to release the files was Dec. 19.

“Fifty days past the deadline, at best, according to the Department of Justice’s own admissions, maybe half of all the available Epstein files have been released,” Schumer said on the floor Thursday morning.

Schumer said that among the records released, many have been “redacted to an absurd degree.”

“This is not what the law requires. This is a mockery of the truth and an insult to the survivors. What makes this all the more sickening is that in over 1,000 instances, the Justice Department failed to follow the law and leaked the identities of over 100 victims. But do you know who the Justice Department did seem to protect? Epstein’s co-conspirators,” Schumer continued.

The minority leader entered into the congressional record a letter he brought along from roughly 20 Epstein victims decrying the “reckless and dangerous” release of victims’ identities.

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., blocked the resolution, chalking it up as “another reckless political stunt designed to distract Americans from Democrats’ dangerous plan to shut down the Department of Homeland Security.”

Barrasso was referring to negotiations underway to fund DHS. Democrats have demanded changes to immigration enforcement tactics after two U.S. citizens were fatally shot by federal agents in Minneapolis, and numerous other U.S. citizens were injured by federal agents during Trump’s surge into blue states.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., criticized Barrasso’s objection on the floor, calling it “morally wrong.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

A DOJ official told States Newsroom in an email that the resolution presented “a tired narrative.”

“Just because you wish something to be true, doesn’t mean it is. This Department produced more than 3.5 million pages in compliance with the law and, in full transparency, has disclosed to the public and to Congress what items were not responsive. I assume all members of Congress read the actual language before voting on it, but if not, our press release and letter to Congress clearly spells this out,” the official wrote, including a link to the department’s Jan. 30 press release.

‘Hunger or thirst for information’

Blanche told reporters on Jan. 30, “There’s a hunger or a thirst for information that I do not think will be satisfied by the review of these documents. There’s nothing I can do about that.” 

He said no information uncovered in the files warranted new prosecutions.

The new law, dubbed by lawmakers as the Epstein Files Transparency Act, required the DOJ to make publicly available “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ’s possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein,” including materials related to Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. 

Epstein avoided federal charges in 2008 when he pleaded guilty to Florida state prostitution charges, including for the solicitation of a minor. 

A 2007 draft of a federal indictment that laid out more robust charges was among the files released by the DOJ on Jan. 30.

A dissatisfied Rolls-Royce buyer in Texas has filed a lawsuit against the automaker, claiming her 2025 Spectre Black Badge failed just four months after delivery due to an serious battery defect. With the brand planning additional EVs, including an electric sedan and SUV, the legal dispute is a headache it’d rather not have to deal with.

Read: Spectre Black Badge Is The Most Powerful Rolls-Royce Ever Created

The complaint, filed against Rolls-Royce Motor Cars North America and authorized dealer Avondale Dealership, alleges that plaintiff Marci M. Donovitz paid $546,385 for a bespoke Rolls-Royce Spectre Black Badge in early 2025. She took delivery on June 23, 2025.

Buyer Says Car Failed in Four Months

Things soon turned sour. According to the filing, the vehicle “experienced a sudden and serious malfunction” in October, just months after delivery. The plaintiff claims the EV would “soon become inoperable” and sent it to the dealer for inspection.

The dealership reportedly informed her by text that parts had been ordered, but were on backorder with no estimated delivery date.

Rolls-Royce Spectre Black Badge

After 40 days with no progress, Donovitz retained legal counsel and sent a letter to Rolls-Royce requesting that it repurchase the vehicle and issue a refund. The company declined. As of February, the lawsuit states, the Spectre remains in the possession of Avondale Dealership and has not been repaired. The filing refers to the luxury EV as a “lemon.”

Also: California Court Strips Lemon Law Protections For Used Cars Under Warranty

It further claims the vehicle suffers from a “serious battery defect rendering it unsafe and undrivable.” It’s also claimed that Rolls-Royce and the dealer have failed to diagnose or repair the vehicle within a reasonable timeframe, and they’ve retained the car even as it depreciates.

Resale Value in Question

The complaint additionally alleges that Rolls-Royce was aware of reliability concerns and declining secondary-market performance related to the Spectre but failed to disclose this information to the plaintiff at or before the time of sale.

More: GM Buys Back Lemon C8 Corvette And Allows Customer To Upgrade To New Z06

Donovitz is seeking economic damages, including a full repurchase or rescission of the sale, damages for loss of use and enjoyment, diminished value, incidental and consequential losses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorney’s fees and legal costs associated with pursuing the case.