A Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge has ruled that the Social Development Commission’s property corporation defaulted on mortgage payments for its North Avenue buildings and faces foreclosure in the coming months.
This judgment, which was issued Monday, Oct. 6, is the latest development for the Social Development Commission as the anti-poverty agency attempts to reconcile its budget and secure funding amid lawsuits, board tensions and government reviews.
The properties will now enter a redemption period for three months before the court can take further action, including selling the properties at auction.
“I can tell you that (SDC) is working tirelessly to be able to secure and redeem the properties,”said Evan P. Schmit,an attorney with Kerkman & Dunn representing SDC and SD Properties.
Millions owed
Forward Community Investments, a community development financial institution, filed a foreclosure lawsuit in March against SD Properties Inc., the tax-exempt corporation that owns SDC’s buildings. The lawsuit claimed SD Properties defaulted on mortgage payments in 2024 and lists SDC as a guarantor.
On Monday, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge J.D. Watts granted a summary judgment for Forward Community Investments, which included a judgment of foreclosure against SD Properties and SDC and declared that Forward Community Investments is entitled to a money judgment.
This judgment allows the foreclosure process to advance, according to Ryan Zerwer, the president and CEO of Forward Community Investments.
The total judgment amount owed by SD Properties was just over $3.1 million, as of June 16, according to court records.
The lender’s complaint outlines that this includes $2.42 million in principal, interest and other costs for a construction mortgage SD Properties entered into in 2020 and $687,000 for an additional mortgage started in 2023.
Additional accrued interest and other costs may be added to the tally before the properties are redeemed or sold.
SDC moves out
The warehouse located at 1810 W. North Ave. is one of the Social Development Commission’s buildings facing a judgment of foreclosure. (Jonathan Aguilar / Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service / CatchLight Local)
SDC voluntarily vacated the 1730 W. North Ave. office and removed personal property, said Laura Callan, an attorney with Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, which is representing Forward Community Investments. William Sulton, SDC’s attorney, confirmed the agency moved out of both the office and the warehouse building at 1810 W.North Ave.
SD Properties still owns a property on Teutonia Avenue that is not included in the lawsuit.
Watts said that both parties have been cooperative.
“This is, of course, a major event in the community, so I’m aware of the importance of this case,” Watts said.
What’s next?
Wisconsin foreclosure laws require a redemption period, which will be for three months in this case.
During this period, SD Properties has the chance to redeem themortgaged premises by paying the total amount of the judgment and other attorney fees, costs and interest.
“The board is gonna have to decide whether they want to try and redeem the building or not,” Sulton said.
SDC is awaiting responses from the federal government on its status as a community action agency and Wisconsin departments on their audits. This is preventing the board from making decisions on the agency’s future direction and services, Sulton said.
If the properties are not redeemed after three months, the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office will arrange a public auction or sale.
Schmit said a hearing to confirm the sale will be held after the redemption period, which would be the final opportunity for SD Properties to maintain the buildings.
“We will wait for the procedure for the confirmation of the sheriff’s sale, just to be clear,” Watts said.
Meredith Melland is the neighborhoods reporter for the Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service and a corps member of Report for America, a national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on under-covered issues and communities. Report for America plays no role in editorial decisions in the NNS newsroom.
Jonathan Aguilar is a visual journalist at Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service who is supported through a partnership between CatchLight Local and Report for America.
Members of the Texas National Guard are seen at the Elwood Army Reserve Training Center on Oct. 7, 2025 in Elwood, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump’s novel use of National Guard troops for law enforcement purposes has reopened a debate over states’ authority to control police powers, as dueling briefs from current and former state leaders filed in Illinois’ lawsuit against the president show.
A bipartisan group of former governors said Trump’s federalization and deployment of National Guard members to Chicago to control “modest” protests upended the careful balance between state and federal powers.
At the same time, a group of 17 current Republican attorneys general told the court they supported the administration’s move that they said was necessary to protect immigration enforcement officers.
Both groups submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division brought by Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson to block the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops to the nation’s third-largest city.
Trump on Wednesday called for the arrest of Johnson and Pritzker for not assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, a provocative demand that raised further concerns about his administration’s relationship with state leaders.
The bipartisan group supported Pritzker and Johnson’s call for a restraining order to block the deployment, while the Republicans said the restraining order should be denied.
Democratic attorneys general back Oregon
In another case, in which Oregon is challenging Trump’s order to deploy troops to Portland, Democratic governors or attorneys general in 23 states and the District of Columbia argued in support of the state’s position.
Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who was among those siding with Oregon, said Wednesday he did so to “put an end to the dangerous overreach of power we are seeing with Donald Trump’s Guard deployments.”
The brief was also signed by Democratic state officials from Washington state, Maryland, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Kansas and Kentucky and the District of Columbia’s attorney general.
Former govs say deployment robs state authority
The federalist structure of the U.S. government, which bestows powers to both the federal and state governments, leaves broad police power to the states, the bipartisan group wrote.
Sending military forces to conduct law enforcement would unbalance that arrangement, they said.
That group includes Democratic former Govs. Jerry Brown of California, Steve Bullock of Montana, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, Parris Glendening and Martin O’Malley of Maryland, Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Christine Gregoire, Jay Inslee and Gary Locke of Washington, Tony Knowles of Alaska, Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Steve Sisolak of Nevada, Eliot Spitzer of New York, Ted Strickland of Ohio, Tom Vilsack of Iowa and Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania.
GOP former Govs. Arne Carlson of Minnesota, Bill Graves of Kansas, Marc Racicot of Montana, Bill Weld of Massachusetts and Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey also signed the brief.
“The present deployment of military resources, based on an assertion of nearly unfettered federal authority, is unlawful,” they wrote. “The president’s assertion of authority to deploy military troops on domestic soil based on his unreviewable discretion, and without the cooperation and coordination of state authorities, threatens to upset the delicate balance of state and federal authority that underlies our constitutional order.”
The Trump administration misunderstands the section of federal law that Trump has relied on to federalize National Guard troops, the group said.
The administration’s claim that only the president can decide if the conditions are met for National Guard units to be federalized “not only undermines state sovereignty but also deprives governors of a critical public safety tool,” they wrote.
“If federalization of the National Guard is unreviewable, a president motivated by ill will or competing policy priorities could divert Guard resources away from critical state needs, including natural disasters or public health crises,” they continued.
States need ICE enforcement, GOP govs say
The group of current Republican attorneys general argued their states are harmed by the protests in Chicago and other cities that impede federal ICE officers from doing their jobs.
The attorneys general are Brenna Bird of Iowa, Austin Knudsen of Montana, Gentner Drummond of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, Steve Marshall of Alabama, Tim Griffin of Arkansas, James Uthmeier of Florida, Chris Carr of Georgia, Raúl R. Labrador of Idaho, Todd Rokita of Indiana, Lynn Fitch of Mississippi, Catherine Hanaway of Missouri, Michael T. Hilgers of Nebraska, Marty Jackley of South Dakota, Ken Paxton of Texas and John B. McCuskey of West Virginia.
They described the protests in Chicago as acts of violence that require a strong response.
“Rather than protest peacefully, some of those protests became violent, threatening federal officers, harming federal property, and certainly impeding enforcement of federal law,” they wrote. “President Trump’s deployment of a small number of National Guard members to defend against this lawlessness is responsible, constitutional, and authorized by statute.”
The attorneys general added that their states had been harmed by immigrants in the country without legal authorization who had settled in their states, which they said gave the president a public interest purpose in calling up troops to assist.
“The President’s action of federalizing the National Guard furthers the public interest because it allows ICE agents to continue to perform their statutory duties of identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens, which is the only way to protect the States from the harms caused by illegal immigration,” they wrote.
Porsche owners report issues with the brand’s home chargers taking too long.
A lawsuit claims it can take twice as long to charge an electric vehicle.
Owners claim the company knew about the problem but failed to resolve it.
Legal trouble is circling Porsche in the United States, but this time, the controversy isn’t about its cars. The German automaker is under scrutiny over claims that its home charging units fail to deliver the charging speeds owners were promised.
The lawsuit, recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, takes issue with the Porsche Mobile Charger Plus and Porsche Mobile Charger Connect devices.
The Devices in Question
Both of these chargers are available to Porsche owners and allow for easy home charging. When plugged into an outlet providing at least 40 amps, they can charge a car’s battery in between 9.5 and 10.5 hours.
However, the new filing alleges that these units tend to overheat, potentially damaging outlets and creating a fire risk. It also claims that charging times can be nearly double what the company advertises, leaving owners waiting far longer than expected to hit a full charge.
This isn’t Porsche’s first encounter with charger-related complaints. In 2023, the company faced a similar lawsuit over allegedly defective home chargers. To address that case, Porsche agreed to reimburse customers and introduced an updated unit featuring a temperature sensor. But the latest legal filing argues that these steps were cosmetic, not corrective.
“After the original complaint was filed in this case, PCNA offered reimbursement for third-party chargers and, most recently, replacement devices that merely add a temperature sensor,” the lawsuit states.
“These steps did not solve the underlying problem: charging times far longer than advertised, before and after the Charger Restriction, limiting consumers’ ability to use their vehicles when needed and as advertised.”
It has also been claimed in the new lawsuit that Porsche has long known about the problem, but has failed to address it and has not issued a “recall, repair, replacement, or other program.”
Plaintiffs Paul Herdtner of Kansas, owner of a 2020 Taycan 4S, and John Holby of Illinois, who owns a 2021 Taycan Turbo, are leading the case.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker speaks at a news conference in Chicago on Oct. 6, 2025. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson stands at right. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
A federal judge will hear arguments Thursday in Illinois over Chicago’s lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to the state before deciding whether to block the move, the judge wrote in an order.
In a one-paragraph order, U.S. District Judge April M. Perry, whom Democratic President Joe Biden appointed to the bench, set an 11:59 p.m. Wednesday deadline for the Trump administration to respond in writing to the suit filed by the Democratic leaders of Illinois and its largest city, which they filed Monday morning.
Perry did not immediately grant the restraining order Gov. JB Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson sought to block the deployment at the outset of the case.
Perry said she expected the federal government’s response to include evidence about when National Guard troops would arrive in Illinois, where in the state they would go and “the scope of the troops’ activities” once there. She set oral arguments for 11 a.m. Central Time on Thursday.
The suit seeks to stop Trump’s federalization of Illinois National Guard and mobilization of Texas National Guard troops to the state. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, has also agreed to send Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, at Trump’s request.
Pritzker and Johnson’s complaint calls the federalization of state National Guard troops “illegal, dangerous, and unconstitutional.” The Democrats added that the move was “patently pretextual and baseless,” meaning it could not satisfy the legal requirements for a president to wrest from a governor control of a state’s National Guard force.
Pritzker, appearing at a Tuesday event in Minneapolis with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said the federal government has been noncommunicative about the plan for the National Guard troops, but had received “reports” that troops have arrived at a federal facility in the state.
“We don’t know exactly where this is going to end,” he said. “What we know is that it is striking fear in the hearts of everybody in Chicago.”
A federal judge in another case blocked the deployment to Portland after city and Oregon leaders sued to stop it. The federal government appealed that order, and a panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments Thursday, according to a scheduling notice posted Tuesday.
Insurrection Act cited by Trump
Trump has said the extraordinary use of troops, which raises serious legal and constitutional questions about the line between military forces and domestic law enforcement, is necessary to control crime in some Democrat-led cities, including Chicago and Portland.
State and local leaders in those jurisdictions, as well as Los Angeles, have said military personnel are not needed to supplement local police. Pritzker called the proposed deployment to Chicago an “invasion.”
Trump indicated Monday he may seek to further escalate the push for military involvement domestically, saying he would have no qualms about invoking the Insurrection Act, which expands presidential power to use the military for law enforcement.
“We have an Insurrection Act for a reason,” he told reporters. “If I had to enact it, I’d do that. If people were getting killed and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I’d do that.”
Democratic U.S. Sens. Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin of Illinois, Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden of Oregon and Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff from California — the three states where Trump has sent troops over the governors’ objections — called on Trump to withdraw the troops in a Tuesday statement that warned of the escalating conflict between blue states and the federal government.
“Donald Trump is stretching the limits of Presidential authority far past their breaking point and moving us closer to authoritarianism with each dangerous and unacceptable escalation of his campaign to force federal troops into American communities against the wishes of sovereign states in the Union he is supposed to represent,” the senators wrote.
Dems in Congress question raid
Trump’s use of National Guard troops is in part a response to protests in Democratic cities over this administration’s crackdown on immigration enforcement.
Trump has surged immigration enforcement officers to certain cities. Those agents have pursued sometimes aggressive enforcement, including a Sept. 30 raid on a Chicago apartment building that has been criticized for using military-style tactics.
A group of eight U.S. House Democrats wrote Monday to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem calling for an investigation into that raid.
The members were Homeland Security Committee ranking member Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin of Maryland, J. Luis Correa of California, Pramila Jayapal of Washington, Shri Thanedar of Michigan, Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania and Delia Ramirez and Jesús “Chuy” Garcia of Illinois.
“We write to express our outrage over the immigration raid,” they said. “Treating a U.S. city like a war zone is intolerable.”
The Dirksen Federal Courthouse is pictured in Chicago. (Capitol News Illinois photo by Hannah Meisel)
CHICAGO — Illinois and Chicago filed a federal lawsuit Monday to block the Trump administration’s planned deployment of National Guard troops to the state — a move Gov. JB Pritzker called an “invasion.”
Trump pushed forward with the plan to activate hundreds of National Guard soldiers, including some from Texas, despite monthslong opposition from state and local leaders, as well as objections from civic and business groups in the city.
“We must now start calling this what it is: Trump’s Invasion,” Pritzker said in a statement Sunday night. “It started with federal agents, it will soon include deploying federalized members of the Illinois National Guard against our wishes, and it will now involve sending in another state’s military troops.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem asked President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to deploy troops to Illinois to protect federal immigration officers and facilities. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing center in Broadview, a near-west suburb of Chicago, has been the site of several clashes between ICE agents and demonstrators in recent weeks.
But Pritzker, who said Saturday that he refused the Trump administration’s “ultimatum” to activate the National Guard himself, has insisted there is no emergency necessitating guardsmen on the ground. He also warned that White House officials would use any conflict between immigration agents and civilians as a “pretext” for military occupation.
“It will cause only more unrest, including harming social fabric and community relations and increasing the mistrust of police,” the lawsuit said.
The suit, filed in the Northern District of Illinois, names Trump, Noem and Hegseth as defendants.
Texas National Guard also activated
Illinois filed its lawsuit hours after Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced he will send 400 guardsmen to cities around the country, including Chicago, and after a federal judge in Oregon blocked National Guard deployments to Portland.
The order is “effective immediately for an initial period of 60 days” and subject to extension, according to the memo, signed by Hegseth. It comes a day after Pritzker confirmed Trump’s intention to federalize 300 members of the Illinois National Guard.
“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the lawsuit reads. “To guard against this, foundational principles of American law limit the president’s authority to involve the military in domestic affairs. Those bedrock principles are in peril.”
The opening paragraph of Illinois’ lawsuit against the federal government argues that the “foundational principles of American law” that limit the president’s powers to involve the military in domestic affairs are at risk. (Capitol News Illinois illustration with highlight added)
The promised deployment comes as ICE has ramped up activity in Chicago and its suburbs as part of “Operation Midway Blitz,” which has so far resulted in more than 800 arrests according to the Department of Homeland Security.
There have also been two shootings since the clashes began. On Saturday, the governor called the administration’s National Guard activation a “manufactured performance” and not about protecting public safety.
Though the Trump administration insists ICE is targeting undocumented immigrants who have criminal backgrounds, reports have mounted of agents arresting those with no history of illegal activity, detaining children along with their parents and even handcuffing U.S. citizens and children with zip ties. Immigrant and civil rights groups have alleged ICE is arresting people without warrants in violation of a federal consent decree.
The lawsuit also alleges ICE activity in Chicago and its suburbs has already subjected Illinois “to serious and irreparable harm.”
“It also creates economic harm, depressing business activities and tourism that not only hurt Illinoisians but also hurt Illinois’s tax revenue,” the complaint said.
That argument echoes one made by a group of Chicago business and civic groups over the weekend.
“National Guard troops on our streets, like those reportedly being ordered here by the federal government, have the potential to sow fear and chaos, threatening our businesses’ bottom lines and our reputation,” the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago and the Civic Federation said in a joint statement Saturday.
Attorney General Kwame Raoul argues the troop deployment violates Illinois’ rights as sovereign state to carry about its own law enforcement, as well as 1878 Posee Comitatus Act that bans the military from participating in domestic law enforcement.
The lawsuit also claims the Trump administration failed to meet any criteria that could allow the president to federalize the National Guard. The president can federalize the National Guard to stop a foreign invasion, when the president can’t execute the laws of the country or to stop a rebellion.
Raoul and state leaders have argued for weeks that Trump would use protests in Broadview as a “flimsy pretext” to claim a rebellion.
Several protestors have been arrested near the facility in recent weeks on charges of assaulting officers. Federal agents have sprayed tear gas and fired nonlethal ammunition into crowds that have gathered there.
Over the weekend, a U.S. Border Patrol agent shot a woman on the city’s Southwest Side in a confrontation with protesters. Prosecutors eventually charged the woman and another protestor with attempting to “assault, impede, and interfere with the work of federal agents in Chicago.” According to the Chicago Sun-Times, agents fired “defensive shots” when they saw the woman was allegedly “armed with a semi-automatic weapon,” and she was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment before she was charged.
Further, the lawsuit argues the Trump administration has entirely manufactured any public safety crisis in Illinois that would require military intervention. It cites a 2013 social media post by Trump, two years before he announced his candidacy for president, that suggested the military should be deployed to Chicago. It lists several other derogatory comments Trump made about the city, state and their leaders over the years, including as president.
Illinois’ lawsuit against the federal government includes several posts that President Donald Trump has made about the city over a period of at least 12 years. (Screenshots from Illinois’ lawsuit against the federal government)
The lawsuit argues that animosity culminated last week with Trump claiming during a speech to military generals that there was an “invasion from within” and suggesting cities like Chicago should be used as “training grounds” for the military.
How soldiers will be deployed
The lawsuit includes new details about how federal officials communicated with state leaders and gave Pritzker an ultimatum.
DHS sent a memo to the Illinois National Guard on Sept. 28 stating troops “would integrate with federal law enforcement operations, serving in direct support of federal facility protection, access control, and crowd control.”
On Saturday morning, Illinois National Guard Adjutant General Rodney Boyd received a formal email from the Defense Department National Guard Bureau saying Trump asked for at least 300 soldiers, and if Boyd did not activate them within two hours, Hegseth would federalize them. Boyd responded that Pritzker declined to activate the guard. Defense officials sent a new memo late Saturday saying the guard was federalized.
Illinois National Guard leaders received another memo on Sunday informing them soldiers from Texas would be sent to Chicago beginning Monday.
Abbott, a Republican and ardent Trump supporter, has been a frequent foil of Pritzker, bussing thousands of asylum-seeking migrants from the border to Chicago in 2023 and 2024 and criticizing the Illinois governor for welcoming Texas Democratic legislators who fled their state this summer amid a partisan redistricting fight. He said in a social media post that Pritzker “can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let the Texas Guard do it.”
Prior to this year, the last time a president federalized a state’s National Guard without a request from a state’s governor was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent federal troops to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama without the cooperation of segregationist Gov. George Wallace.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
Federal police push towards a crowd of demonstrators at an ICE processing facility south of downtown Portland on Sat., Oct. 4, 2025. (Photo by Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle)
California on Sunday joined Oregon and the city of Portland in suing over the Trump administration’s latest attempt to deploy federal troops to an American city.
More than 100 members of the California National Guard, on orders from President Donald Trump, flew to Oregon overnight against the wishes of elected leaders in both states, and without those leaders’ knowledge. More are expected.
“At the direction of the President, approximately 200 federalized members of the California National Guard are being reassigned from duty in the greater Los Angeles area to Portland, Oregon to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal personnel performing official duties, including the enforcement of federal law, and to protect federal property,” said Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesperson.
The move came just hours after Oregon and Portland won a temporary restraining order against Trump’s attempt to deploy 200 Oregon Guard members to Portland. Federal Judge Karin Immergut — a Trump appointee — said on Saturday that the federal government was violating the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which effectively guarantees that states retain police power within their borders.
Immergut scheduled an emergency hearing at 7 p.m. Pacific time Sunday on a second restraining order, but a public access line for the hearing still wasn’t live by 7:30. Shortly before the hearing was scheduled to begin, plaintiffs filed with the court a Sunday memo from U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordering 400 Texas National Guard troops to mobilize to Oregon, Illinois and other locations.
Kotek and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker both said they received no explanation from the federal government about that order. It’s unclear how many Texas soldiers would be sent to each location and what mission they would carry out, Kotek added.
“This is a continuation and escalation of the president’s dangerous, un-American misuse of states’ National Guard members and hard-earned taxpayer dollars,” Kotek said.
In her Saturday opinion, Immergut also found that protests at an ICE processing facility in Portland were not by any definition a “rebellion” nor do they pose the “danger of a rebellion.”
“This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law,” Immergut wrote in her opinion. “Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation.”
Late Saturday, attorneys for the federal government filed a notice that they would ask the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to put a halt on her order. On Sunday Oregon’s Attorney General Dan Rayfield in turn filed a motion opposing the federal request, saying the issue could be decided by Immergut as early as Monday.
“What was unlawful yesterday is unlawful today. What was unlawful with the Oregon National Guard is unlawful with the California National Guard. The judge’s order was not some minor procedural point for the president to work around like my 14-year old does when he doesn’t like my answers,” Rayfield said at a news conference late Sunday afternoon. He was joined by Gov. Tina Kotek and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson.
If the stay is denied, Oregon troops will be sent home from Camp Rilea in Warrenton, where they’ve been waiting for about a week under orders from Trump and U.S. Northern Command, a joint federal military command based in Colorado.
“They are pawns in this situation, political pawns in this situation. And I would like to send our troops home to their families, to their jobs,” Kotek said.
The newly arrived California Guard troops are currently waiting at Camp Withycombe in Happy Valley, Kotek said, and she expects 99 more will come to the camp Sunday about 20 miles from the ICE processing facility where mostly small and peaceful protests have gone on for months. If they are ordered to the ICE facility Sunday night where protests are ongoing, Kotek said, she cannot do anything to stop it absent a court order. Oregon, California and Portland also asked the federal district court on Sunday for a Temporary Restraining Order barring those troops from being activated, which could take several days to be decided by Immergut.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement early Sunday that up to 300 soldiers were being sent to Oregon on Trump’s orders. Those troops are also under the orders of U.S. Northern Command. Kotek said she does not know what their mission is, and Trump and his administration have not communicated with her at all about the deployment.
“This afternoon, I sent a message to Northern Command, directing them to obey the Oct. 4 court ruling from yesterday and take no further action regarding Oregon,” Kotek said. “I also directed that those troops that will be at Camp Withycombe should be restricted to that facility and that the California National Guard troops should be sent home as soon as possible.”
Protests have continued outside the ICE facility in Portland, with about 100 people on the streets Saturday night.
At one point during the evening, federal agents used chemical irritants to push protesters a block away from the facility onto city street, far from the federal property where the officers’ enforcement authority is limited.
Unknown individuals were also allowed onto the property by federal officials to film cell phone videos from the ICE building’s roof, as protestors were sprayed with chemical gases indiscriminately.
A Portland Police spokesperson said local law enforcement were not aware of or assisting with the federal agents’ actions.
The ramping up of federal pressure on Portland has coincided with a similar display of force in Chicago over the past few days. During a speech to military officials last week, Trump said he wanted to use Democratic cities as “training grounds” for the military.
Wilson, Portland’s mayor, said the actions by federal troops at the ICE facility Saturday evening were “beyond the pale.”
“We saw unjustified uses of force; We saw the shoving of peaceful veterans and elderly people to the ground; Indiscriminate use of impact munitions to disperse an otherwise peaceful crowd; Indiscriminately discharging pepper spray. We saw a sniper on the roof of the ICE facility,” he said at the news conference. He said the city would file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Department.
“I’m so disappointed that we’ve had to spend our valuable time on this matter. We have so many hard and important challenges in Portland and in Oregon and the United States, and this is a situation that we didn’t ask for,” Wilson said. “It certainly wasn’t invited.”
Editor-in-Chief Julia Shumway contributed to this report.
This story was originally produced by Oregon Capital Chronicle, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Tesla hit with second lawsuit this week over fatal Cybertruck crash in California.
Parents allege Tesla ignored safety flaw that trapped victims inside burning truck.
Lawsuit claims hidden door release made escape impossible during post-crash fire.
Tesla is facing renewed scrutiny after another troubling incident involving its vehicles. As the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) investigates owner reports that the company’s electric door handles can become inoperative, preventing occupants from entering or exiting the vehicle, Tesla is now being sued by the parents of two teenagers who died in a Cybertruck crash last November.
The lawsuits allege that safety issues with the electric pickup’s handles prevented the teens from escaping the vehicle.
The fatal crash occurred in the early hours of November 27 in Piedmont, California. Four teenagers were in the Tesla when it smashed into a cement wall and became wedged between it and a large tree. Moments later, the vehicle burst into flames, killing three of the four occupants, all of whom were 2023 graduates of Piedmont High School.
Expanding Legal Battle
Carl and Noelle Tsukahara, parents of 18-year-old Krysta Tsukahara, recently added Tesla to an earlier lawsuit initially filed against the estate of the 19-year-old driver, Soren Dixon, and the vehicle owner’s estate. The parents of 20-year-old Jack Nelson, another victim of the crash, have also filed a separate suit against the company.
When Power Fails
As noted by the lawsuits, the door handles of the Cybertruck operate off the 12-volt battery, and if the vehicle loses power after a crash, the electronic door mechanism will fail. The EV does have manual door releases at the front and rear, but they can be hard to find. This is especially true in the second row, where a manual release cable is hidden beneath a rubber mat at the bottom of the door pocket.
The lawsuit from the Tsukaharas asserts that their daughter survived the impact and was fully conscious. However, she was unable to escape the Tesla’s second row and died from smoke inhalation and burns. It’s claimed that Tesla has long been aware of issues with the safety of its electric door handles.
“These are not new concepts or ideas and are things vehicle designers should be taking into account,” one of the Nelson family’s attorneys told the San Francisco Chronicle. “It’s a preventable death if you have a vehicle occupant who dies who otherwise could exit a vehicle if their doors were functional, or be rescued.”
Both lawsuits seek unspecified punitive damages against Tesla. The family attorney of the Tsukaharas, believes he has a “very, very strong case,” against the electric carmaker.
“They will want to blame Mr. Dixon, anybody but themselves, but this vehicle absolutely should not have entombed these individuals and my clients’ daughter. It’s our way of holding the wrongdoer accountable, and correcting bad conduct.”
U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, speaks with reporters inside the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Sept. 29, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — The chairwoman of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee said Tuesday the Government Accountability Office should sue the Trump administration over its efforts to freeze or unilaterally cancel spending approved by Congress.
“I believe that GAO, which is empowered under the Impoundment and Budget Control Act of 1974 to sue in cases, should do so,” Sen. Susan Collins said. “The GAO has found seven instances in which the (impoundments) violate the act and it has standing to sue.”
Collins, R-Maine, also told reporters that she doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court’s decision last week on its emergency docket that allows the Trump administration to cancel $4 billion in foreign aid.
“I disagree with the Supreme Court’s temporary decision, but it was not a decision that delved into the merits of the case,” Collins said. “That’s yet to come.”
Collins, one of the more vocal members of her party over preserving Congress’ constitutional power of the purse, said “Well, let’s see,” when asked if she expects the GAO, a government watchdog agency, would win a lawsuit over the Trump administration impounding funds.
The GAO and White House budget office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Funds frozen for libraries, medical research, FEMA
Republicans in Congress have been either supportive or relatively quiet about the Trump administration’s efforts to freeze or cancel funding approved by Congress.
The GAO has cited the Trump administration for illegally impounding funding for electric vehicle charging, museums and libraries, Head Start, energy efficiency upgrades in K-12 schools, funding for medical research at the National Institutes of Health and funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., released a statement earlier this week rebuking the Trump administration’s actions after the GAO released its seventh impoundment decision.
“Today, we have another stark reminder of how President Trump’s lawless assault on our spending laws is hurting real people in every part of the country—as funding is held up to address homelessness, prepare for disasters, and much more,” Murray wrote. “It is time for Republicans to join us in insisting that every last penny that is owed to the American people gets out to the American people.”
Tesla reached a confidential settlement in a 2019 Autopilot crash case.
The case ended a month before trial after four years of litigation.
Settlement follows a $329 million verdict in a similar Florida incident.
In August of 2019, a man driving his Ford Explorer Sport Trac was hit from behind by another driver in a 2019 Tesla Model 3 who was using Autopilot. The Ford’s driver lost control as the truck rolled and his 15-year-old son, who was not wearing a seatbelt, was ejected and killed. Just weeks before the case was set to go to trial, Tesla quietly settled the lawsuit that followed.
The Tesla driver, Romeo Yalung, was traveling at 69 mph (111 km/h) in lane three of Interstate 880 in California. Video from the EV shows the driver of the Ford, Benjamin Escudero, signaling and moving into the same lane ahead. Neither Yalung nor the Tesla, which had Autopilot engaged at the time, slowed down to avoid hitting the Ford.
The lawsuit named multiple parties, not only Tesla and Yalung but also Yalung’s wife, who was in the passenger seat at the time. Over four years, Judge Rebekah Everson had the option to dismiss the case but allowed it to move forward. Now, with trial just a month away, Tesla has reached a settlement for an undisclosed amount.
That might seem like a shock considering some of the surrounding factors. Tesla has a largely victorious record in court when lawsuits about Autopilot or Full Self-Driving (Supervised) come up. Juries and judges have agreed in almost all cases that the person behind the wheel is responsible for driving and not Tesla. In addition, video of the tragic crash certainly calls into question Mr. Yalung’s attentiveness.
That said, this all comes after a Florida jury decided that Tesla was 33 percent liable for another fatal crash involving Autopilot. In that case, the driver of the Tesla hit two people on the side of the road, admitted fault to the police, and said that he wasn’t paying attention when the crash happened. Despite that, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $242 million.
Tesla is now appealing that verdict, but another loss in court could have been damaging. Settling this California case may have been a calculated move to avoid the risk of a repeat outcome.
Chair of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell, left, administers the oath of office to Lisa Cook, right, to serve as a member of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve System during a ceremony at the William McChesney Martin Jr. Building of the Federal Reserve May 23, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — An appeals court late Monday rejected the Trump administration’s request to move ahead with firing Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, as the president tries to pressure the independent board to lower interest rates.
The 2-1 decision will allow Cook to partake in Tuesday’s Federal Reserve meeting, where the board will vote on whether to adjust interest rates.
The Trump administration is likely to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
If Trump is successful in removing Cook and is able to nominate a replacement, he could have a majority of Fed members who are aligned with his desire to lower interest rates to boost the economy.
Trump nominee approved
Cook, appointed by former President Joe Biden, is the first Black woman appointed to the Fed, and she has consistently voted against lowering interest rates since joining the board in 2022. Her term ends in 2038.
Late Monday, the U.S. Senate also approved Trump’s nominee for an open spot at the Fed, Stephen Miran, in a 48-47 vote.
While the Fed is an independent agency, Miran will continue to serve as the head of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers.
In a social media post Monday, the president called out Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, and pressed that he “MUST CUT INTEREST RATES, NOW, AND BIGGER THAN HE HAD IN MIND. HOUSING WILL SOAR!!!.”
Appeals court splits
In the appeals court decision on Cook, D.C. Circuit Judge Gregory G. Katsas, whom Trump appointed in 2017, split with Judges J. Michelle Childs and Bradley N. Garcia, both appointed by Biden.
Last week a federal judge ruled to keep Cook in her position, determining that Trump administration allegations of mortgage fraud lacked evidence and did not meet the threshold for removing Cook under “just cause.”
Katsas agreed with the Trump administration’s argument that the president has the right to remove a Fed member for “just cause.”
“This broad definition ‘give[s] the President more removal authority than other removal provisions’ imposed by Congress or reviewed by the Supreme Court,” Katsas wrote in his dissent.
Childs and Garcia did not address the “just cause” argument but said the lack of due process Cook received in her removal warranted blocking Trump’s attempt to fire her.
“Because Cook’s due process claim is very likely meritorious, there is no need to address the meaning of ‘for cause’ in the Federal Reserve Act in this emergency posture,” the majority wrote in the opinion.
A Trump official referred Cook to the Department of Justice, accusing her of improperly filing paperwork about her residence that allowed her to get a more favorable mortgage rate. Reuters obtained Cook’s paperwork and found no evidence of tax rule violations.
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers address the Legislature in his 2024 State of the State message. (Baylor Spears | Wisconsin Examiner)
Gov. Tony Evers is suing the Wisconsin State Legislature for clarification on administrative rulemaking powers after a state Supreme Court decision earlier this year found that lawmakers were unconstitutionally blocking administrative rules indefinitely.
Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Evers v. Marklein II decision in July, Evers has taken steps to implement 12 administrative rules that were approved by him, but without getting the sign off from committees. His administration has said the additional approval isn’t needed.
However, Republican lawmakers have objected to Evers implementing the rules without going through the legislative committees, instructing the Legislative Reference Bureau not to publish any rule that hasn’t gone through a review by the Legislature in accordance with Wisconsin law.
“The Legislature cannot continue to indefinitely obstruct my administration from doing the people’s work — and the Wisconsin Supreme Court agrees, but Republican lawmakers are continuing their unlawful behavior anyway,” Evers said in a statement about the court filing. “At the end of the day, this lawsuit is about following the law and making sure there’s accountability for elected officials if they fail to do so. It shouldn’t take going to court to get Republican lawmakers to comply with state law and Supreme Court decisions, but it seems like that’s what it’s going to take, unfortunately.”
Evers argues in the filing in Dane County Circuit Court that the state law that barred agencies from publishing rules that hadn’t gone through the Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules was invalidated under the state Supreme Court ruling.
“No statute bars agencies from promulgating final administrative rules pending a legislative committee’s review,” the filing argued. “And even if any such statute existed, it would be facially unconstitutional under Evers II… a legislative committee cannot have discretion over a pre-promulgation pause without violating constitutional bicameralism and presentment procedures. Such a statute would also unconstitutionally intrude on the executive branch’s authority to execute statutes that authorize administrative rulemaking.”
Evers is asking for a declaration and an injunction that orders the Legislative Reference Bureau must publish the nine rules the Evers Administration has already submitted and all administrative rules that have completed all preceding rulemaking procedures and been approved by the governor.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) said in a statement that Evers is directing agencies to violate “valid” parts of Wisconsin law that “no court has ever questioned, let alone found to be invalid in any respect.”
“Just because Governor Evers is now a lame duck who no longer believes he is accountable to the people, it does not give him the right to ignore laws that the Legislature enacted, and a prior occupant of his office signed,” the Republican leaders said. “That’s not how the rule of law works.”
Jury awarded $329M after a 2019 Tesla crash killed Naibel Benavides Leon in Miami.
Tesla blames driver George McGee for ignoring warnings and overriding car’s safety systems.
Plaintiffs argue Tesla overstated Autopilot’s abilities, misleading drivers on system limitations.
Tesla has fought, and consistently won, court battles over its semi-autonomous Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised). That record changed recently when a Florida jury decided that the EV maker was partially to blame for a crash that ended in a fatality. Now, Elon Musk’s company is pushing for a new trial, arguing the verdict could stifle development of safety technologies.
A Fatal Florida Crash
The case stems from the death of 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon, who was killed in 2019 when a 2019 Model S slammed into a parked Chevrolet Tahoe in Miami-Dade county. Her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, suffered serious injuries.
The driver, George McGee, admitted he dropped his phone, took his eyes off the road, and believed the car would brake on its own. At the same time, he conceded that he was negligent and placed too much trust in the car.
Jury Finds Tesla Partly Liable
Despite that, a jury found Tesla 33 percent liable, awarding $42.5 million in compensatory damages and a staggering $200 million in punitive damages. Jurors were reportedly swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument that Tesla overstated the capabilities of Autopilot, even as the company repeatedly warned drivers to stay alert and keep their hands on the wheel. According to CarComplaints, Tesla admits that the whole thing was a tragedy but says it was entirely the fault of McGee’s “extraordinary recklessness.”
Tesla Pushes Back
In its filing, the company said “No other car in existence would have stopped when the driver was telling it to ‘go.’” Tesla argued that McGee was “reckless in the extreme by ignoring or overriding every safety feature in his car,” including by pressing the accelerator pedal, which overrides the system’s cruise control and braking functions. There’s no question that this is a sticky situation, but Tesla makes a few interesting points.
“For as long as there have been cars, there have been reckless, self-absorbed drivers like McGee,” Tesla said. “Those drivers should face every legal consequence for their wrongful conduct. Holding Tesla liable for providing drivers with advanced safety features just because a reckless driver overrode them cannot be reconciled with Florida law. That rule would impede the development of safety features, deter progress, and cost lives both now and in the long run.”
The Bigger Question
Ultimately, all of this seems to stem from the nomenclature and advertising of Autopilot. Were it called something else and marketed differently, it would seem more difficult to blame Tesla at all. The automaker is asking the judge to either order a new trial or reduce the damages, a move that will weigh driver responsibility against driver-assistance technology. The outcome could make a huge impact in the future of automakers and their relationship with autonomy.
Class action claims Tesla favored visa holders to cut labor costs over Americans.
Lawsuit says Tesla hired 1,355 H-1B workers while laying off thousands of citizens.
Plaintiffs allege Tesla refused interviews after learning they did not need sponsorship.
The way Tesla hires and fires its workers is under fresh legal scrutiny. A proposed class action lawsuit filed against Tesla in San Francisco alleges that the automaker has violated federal civil rights law by favoring visa holders over American workers to reduce labor costs. The suit also claims Tesla has fired US citizens at disproportionately higher rates compared to foreigners working at the company.
Alleged Hiring Bias
According to the complaint, Tesla hired roughly 1,355 skilled workers on H-1B visas in 2024 while laying off more than 6,000 U.S. workers, “the vast majority” of whom are believed to have been citizens. Although it remains unclear how the plaintiffs plan to prove the alleged discriminatory practices, they are seeking damages on behalf of American citizens who were rejected after applying for jobs at Tesla, as well as those who were terminated.
Two plaintiffs are named in the lawsuit. The first, Scott Taub, says he had been dissuaded from applying for one job after being told it was only available for H-1B visa holders, and he did not receive an interview for a second job. The second plaintiff, human resources specialist Sofia Brander, said Tesla would not interview her for two jobs, even though she had twice been a contract employee.
Both Taub and Brander claim Tesla refused to hire them after learning that neither of them would need sponsorship for employment, suggesting that they were US citizens, reports Reuters.
Claims of ‘Wage Theft’
“While visa workers make up just a fraction of the United States labour market, Tesla prefers to hire these candidates over US citizens, as it can pay visa-dependent employees less than American employees performing the same work, a practice in the industry known as ‘wage theft’,” the lawsuit claims.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk himself once held an H-1B visa, and the complaint cites a December 27, 2024 post he made on X voicing support for the program.
“The reason I’m in America along with so many critical people who built SpaceX, Tesla and hundreds of other companies that made America strong is because of H1B,” Musk wrote.
Family alleges Tesla Cybertruck defects trapped 47-year-old driver in fiery August crash.
The lawsuit also accuses Barn Whiskey Bar of over-serving alcohol before the incident.
Plaintiffs seek over $1M in damages despite NHTSA’s top safety rating for the Cybertruck.
A tragic crash involving a Tesla Cybertruck has now turned into a courtroom battle. More than a year after Michael Sheehan lost his life in a single-vehicle accident, his family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against both Tesla and a Texas bar, arguing that both share responsibility for what happened.
According to the complaint, filed in Harris County District Court, Sheehan owned the Cybertruck for just 102 days when the crash happened. He left the Barn Whiskey Bar in Cypress, Texas, and crashed about seven miles away. The Tesla left the road, hit a culvert, and burst into flames.
At the time of the accident, it was unclear what caused the crash. Investigators openly admitted that just identifying the body was difficult due to the heat of the fire. Now, we have a little more insight into potentially contributing factors.
Claims Against The Bar
Sheehan’s family says that the Barn Whiskey Bar over-served Sheehan despite him being “clearly intoxicated.” In fact, the lawsuit goes as far as to say that “it was apparent to the provider that MICHAEL SHEEHAN was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others.”
Interestingly, the family also blames Tesla because it says the Cybertruck itself is dangerous. According to the lawsuit, the “battery cell chemistry used is hyper volatile and susceptible to thermal runaway.” The family says that the automaker could have used “battery cell chemistry with slower thermal propagation readily available, which allows longer time to escape post-crash.”
The family goes on to cite other things it sees as defects, like the battery modules, the packs, the location of the vents in those modules and packs, and even the door handles in the truck that are “unreasonably difficult to locate in an emergency.”
What The Family Seeks
Essentially, the family believes that if the fire had spread more slowly and if egress had been easier, Sheehan would’ve escaped. To that end, it’s seeking damages in excess of $1,000,000. All that said, it’s also worth noting that the Cybertruck has the highest safety rating (five-star) from the NHTSA.
Shoppers who ordered a Foundation Series were supposed to get several accessories.
The highlight of the package was an off-road light bar glued above the windshield.
Lawsuit accuses Tesla of knowingly advertising features it never intended to deliver.
When Tesla launched the Foundation Series version of the Cybertruck, it promised that it would come with a special roof-mounted LED off-road light bar. However, a newly filed lawsuit in the US contends that many owners did not receive these light bars, and says that some wouldn’t have purchased their trucks had they known the light bar wouldn’t be included.
The lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Eric Schwartz in California. He alleges that he purchased a Tesla Cybertruck Cyberbeast in December 2023 and paid an extra $20,000 for the Foundation Series version. These vehicles were supposed to be equipped with several upgrades, including the light bar positioned just above the windshield.
However, according to Schwartz, his Cybertruck was delivered without the LED light bar, and while he has repeatedly contacted the automaker, it has apparently refused to give it to him.
The lawsuit contends that the plaintiff suffered an ‘injury in fact’ because Tesla took his money but did not provide the products it had promised. Through the class action, Schwartz aims to represent all Cybertruck purchasers in California who bought a model that was supposed to include the off-road light bar, but was not delivered with one.
The class action also claims that buyers may not have purchased their Cybertrucks had they known Tesla was advertising the light bars without the intention of delivering them with the vehicles.
Just Another Lawsuit
This isn’t the only recent lawsuit to be filed against Tesla in California. Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin said the automaker must answer to a certified class action that alleges the automaker misled drivers about the self-driving abilities of its vehicles. The lawsuit claims that Tesla failed to live up to the promises made by the company on its website, in blog posts, on social media, and in comments made by boss Elon Musk.
Plaintiffs allege the company knew about the issue but failed to inform drivers.
Physical steering wheel buttons will return with the upcoming all-electric ID.2all.
Touch-sensitive steering wheel buttons seemed futuristic when Volkswagen introduced them, but they’ve sparked more frustration than admiration. Now, according to a new class action lawsuit in the US, these capacitive controls may not just be inconvenient – they could pose a genuine safety risk.
A few years back, Volkswagen admitted that touch-sensitive steering wheel buttons were a misstep and pledged to return to physical switches in future models. That decision, however, does little for current owners still stuck with controls that the common consensus is that they are far too finicky.
According to the lawsuit, these overly sensitive controls mean it’s possible to automatically engage the Adaptive Cruise Control with a “mere light brush of the hand,” potentially putting drivers in dangerous situations.
Focus on the ID.4
The case is focused on VW ID.4 models equipped with these capacitive buttons and names two plaintiffs who are reportedly now “terrified and hesitant” to drive their vehicles. The class action also alleges that VW has failed to disclose the alleged defect, nor has it offered its customers suitable repairs or replacements free of charge, or even offered to reimburse its customers.
It’s also been alleged that VW has known about the problem because of customer complaints, internal records, and information sent from dealers.
The plaintiffs involved assert that Volkswagen is guilty of common law fraud by omission, alongside breach of express and implied warranty and unjust enrichment. The lawsuit has been filed in a New Jersey federal court and also asserts that the company has violated consumer protection laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
While it’s been almost three years since VW said it’d ditch its capacitive steering wheel controls, we will have to wait until the launch of the all-electric ID.2all before physical steering wheel buttons make a return. As such, it’ll likely take the German brand several years to completely phase out the haptic switches from the rest of its model range.
Login
