President Donald Trump will sign an executive order this week to extend a deadline for TikTok’s Chinese owner to divest the popular video sharing app, the White House announced Tuesday.

Trump had signed an order in early April to keep TikTok running for an additional 75 days after a potential deal to sell the app to American owners was put on ice.

“As he has said many times, President Trump does not want TikTok to go dark,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. “This extension will last 90 days, which the Administration will spend working to ensure this deal is closed so that the American people can continue to use TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure.”

Trump had told reporters aboard Air Force One as he flew back to Washington early Tuesday from the Group of Seven summit in Canada that he “probably” would extend the deadline again.

Trump also said he thinks Chinese President Xi Jinping will “ultimately approve” a deal to divest TikTok’s business in the United States.

It will be the third time Trump has extended the deadline.

The first one was through an executive order on Jan. 20, his first day in office, after the platform went dark briefly when the ban approved by Congress — and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court — took effect.

The second was in April, when White House officials believed they were nearing a deal to spin off TikTok into a new company with U.S. ownership that fell apart after China backed out following Trump’s tariff announcement.

It is not clear how many times Trump can — or will — keep extending the ban as the government continues to try to negotiate a deal for TikTok, which is owned by China’s ByteDance. Trump has amassed more than 15 million followers on TikTok since he joined last year, and he has credited the trendsetting platform with helping him gain traction among young voters. He said in January that he has a “warm spot for TikTok.”

Former Del. Jay Jones will look to be the face of legal resistance to President Donald Trump in Virginia after winning Tuesday’s closely watched Democratic state primary for attorney general.

Jones will face Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares in the November general election. His victory was a critical step for Democrats in rounding out their ticket ahead of a bellwether election later this year.

Democrats are also nominating their pick for lieutenant governor from a field of six candidates. State Sen. Ghazala Hashmi led Former Richmond City Mayor Levar Stoney in the tightly locked race Tuesday night, and she declared victory, but The Associated Press deemed the race too early to call.

The November election is sure to make history as Virginia is set to elect its first female governor since the state’s first governorship 250 years ago. Democrat Abigail Spanberger, who ran for the Democratic nomination unopposed, will battle Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears — the only Republican who qualified for the ballot.

Virginia is one of two states that host statewide elections the year after a presidential election — New Jersey is the other — and the races are typically seen as referendums on the party in power before Congress heads into midterm elections.

Analysts will be looking for clues in both states about voter sentiment with Trump back in the Oval Office and Republicans controlling power in Washington.

Democrats’ hold on Virginia has slipped in recent years, moving it close to swing-state status nationally. Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin beat former Gov. Terry McAuliffe in 2021.

Still, Democrats have history on their side: The party of the sitting president typically suffers defeat in Virginia’s statewide races. And considering Trump has never won the state, Democrats are probably better positioned to make gains once their ticket solidifies.

Jones won the Democratic nomination in the race for attorney general despite his opponent casting him as lacking criminal prosecutorial experience.

Jones, who represented Norfolk in the House of Delegates for four years, comes from a long line of Hampton Roads politicians. His father was also a delegate, and his grandfather was the first Black member of the Norfolk School Board. Jones previously ran for attorney general in 2021 but lost the primary to Democratic incumbent Mark Herring.

He defeated Democrat Shannon Taylor, who has served more than a decade as the top prosecutor in the suburbs outside Richmond after flipping the open seat in 2011.

On the campaign trail, Jones touted himself as a candidate with the experience best suited for the job: He had worked as an assistant attorney general in Washington, where he said he had litigated consumer protection cases.

If elected attorney general, he also vowed to push back against Trump in court.

“I am ready for this fight and to win this November,” Jones said in a victory statement.

The six Democrats vying to be Virginia’s next lieutenant governor aren’t all that different on the issues: They support rights to abortion, a living wage, affordable housing and accessible health care. They also share similar criticisms of Trump.

The candidates notably fracture along regional lines.

Stoney has touted his ties to the Democratic Party and experience working under former Govs. Mark Warner and Terry McAuliffe.

Hashmi is also from the Richmond area, representing part of the city and suburbs. She has pushed reproductive health in her bid and has been endorsed by abortion rights political action committees.

Virginia Sen. Aaron Rouse, from Virginia Beach with ties to southwest Virginia, has also highlighted his legislative accomplishments.

Prince William County School Board Chair Barbur Lateef, former federal prosecutor Victor Salgado and retired U.S. Department of Labor worker Alex Bastani are from northern Virginia.

Only one Republican candidate in each statewide contest is advancing to the ballot.

Earle-Sears became the gubernatorial nominee after Republicans Dave LaRock and Amanda Chase failed to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Both LaRock and Chase initially challenged Earle-Sears for not being fully aligned with Trump.

Conservative talk-radio host John Reid became the de facto nominee for lieutenant governor after his primary opponent left the race, and despite intraparty quarreling over whether he was tied to a social media account reposting pornography.

Miyares sailed to his spot on the ballot as the nominee for attorney general after announcing his reelection bid. On Tuesday night, he said of Jones’ victory: “My opponent’s ideological record makes Virginia families less safe and our streets more violent.”

All 100 seats of the House of Delegates are up for election in November.

In Virginia’s more competitive districts, Democrat May Nivar won her primary race and will be taking on Republican incumbent Del. David Owen in a Richmond-area district that House liberals are vying to flip. Democrat Lindsey Dougherty won her primary race and will battle Republican Del. Carrie Coyner in a Petersburg-area district.

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from limiting passport sex markers for many transgender and nonbinary Americans.

Tuesday’s ruling from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick means that transgender or nonbinary people who are without a passport or need to apply for a new one can request a male, female or “X” identification marker rather than being limited to the marker that matches the gender assigned at birth.

In an executive order signed in January, the president used a narrow definition of the sexes instead of a broader conception of gender. The order said a person is male or female and rejected the idea that someone can transition from the sex assigned at birth to another gender.

Kobick first issued a preliminary injunction against the policy last month, but that ruling applied only to six people who joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit over the passport policy.

In Tuesday’s ruling she agreed to expand the injunction to include transgender or nonbinary people who are currently without a valid passport, those whose passport is expiring within a year, and those who need to apply for a passport because theirs was lost or stolen or because they need to change their name or sex designation.

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

The government failed to show that blocking its policy would cause it any constitutional injury, Kobick wrote, or harm the executive branch’s relations with other countries.

The transgender and nonbinary people covered by the preliminary injunction, meanwhile, have shown that the passport policy violates their constitutional rights to equal protection, Kobick said.

“Even assuming a preliminary injunction inflicts some constitutional harm on the Executive Branch, such harm is the consequence of the State Department’s adoption of a Passport Policy that likely violates the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans,” Kobick wrote.

Kobick, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, sided with the ACLU’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which stays the action while the lawsuit plays out.

“The Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny,” Kobick wrote in the preliminary injunction issued earlier this year. “That standard requires the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest. The government has failed to meet this standard.”

In its lawsuit, the ACLU described how one woman had her passport returned with a male designation while others are too scared to submit their passports because they fear their applications might be suspended and their passports held by the State Department.

Another mailed in their passport Jan. 9 and requested to change their name and their sex designation from male to female. That person was still waiting for their passport, the ACLU said in the lawsuit, and feared missing a family wedding and a botany conference this year.

In response to the lawsuit, the Trump administration argued that the passport policy change “does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution.” It also contended that the president has broad discretion in setting passport policy and that plaintiffs would not be harmed since they are still free to travel abroad.

U.S. President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Monday that they had signed a trade deal that will slash tariffs on U.K. auto and aerospace industry imports — but they are still discussing how to handle steel production.

The pair spoke to reporters at the Group of Seven summit in the Canadian Rockies, with Trump brandishing the pages of what he said was a long-awaited agreement. The rollout was anything but smooth, however, as Trump dropped the papers and at first said his administration had reached an agreement with the European Union when he meant the United Kingdom.

The president nonetheless insisted the pact is “a fair deal for both” and would “produce a lot of jobs, a lot of income.”

“We just signed it,” Trump said, “and it’s done.”

Starmer said it meant “a very good day for both our countries, a real sign of strength.”

Reaching an agreement is significant as Trump has threatened much of the world with steep import tariffs that have unsettled markets and raised the possibility of a global trade war.

He has since backed off on many of his proposed levies but also continued to suggest that administration officials were furiously negotiating new trade pacts with dozens of countries — even as few have actually materialized.

Trump said “the U.K. is very well protected,” from tariffs. “You know why? Because I like them.”

The signing of the deal at the G7 followed Trump and Starmer’s announcement in May that they’d reached a framework for a trade pact that would slash U.S. import taxes on British cars, steel and aluminum in return for greater access to the British market for U.S. products, including beef and ethanol.

But Monday’s agreement fully covers only British cars and aerospace materials, with more work to come on steel.

The British government said the new agreement removes U.S. tariffs on U.K. aerospace products, exempting Britain from a 10% levy the Trump White House has sought to impose on all other countries — a boost to British firms, including engine-maker Rolls-Royce.

It also sets the tax on British autos at 10% from the end of the month, down from the current 27.5%, up to a quota of 100,000 vehicles a year.

U.K. Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the deal protects “jobs and livelihoods in some of our most vital sectors.” Mike Hawes, chief executive of Britain’s Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said it was “great news for the U.K. automotive industry.”

But there was no final agreement to cut the tax on British steel to zero as originally foreseen — seen as vital to preserving the U.K.'s beleaguered steel industry. Britain’s steel output has fallen 80% since the late 1960s due to high costs and the rapid growth of cheaper Chinese production.

Monday’s agreement fleshes out the terms of the framework deal announced in May. That framework didn’t immediately take effect, leaving British businesses uncertain about whether the U.K. could be exposed to any surprise hikes from Trump.

British businesses, and the U.K. government, were then blindsided earlier this month when Trump doubled metals tariffs on countries around the world to 50%. He later clarified the level would remain at 25% for the U.K.

After the two leaders spoke, the White House released a statement seeking to clarify matters, saying that with respect to steel and aluminum, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick will “determine a quota of products that can enter the United States without being subject” to previous tariffs imposed by the Trump administration.

The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear from a faith-based pregnancy center in New Jersey challenging a state investigation alleging it misled people into thinking its services included referrals for abortion.

The justices agreed to consider an appeal from First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which wants to block a 2023 subpoena from New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin seeking information about donors, advertisements and medical personnel. It has not yet been served.

Attorneys for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers describe the organization as a “faith-based, pro-life pregnancy center.” The organization generally seek to steer women facing an unwanted pregnancy away from choosing an abortion.

The group challenged the subpoena in federal court, but a judge found that the case wasn’t yet far enough along to weigh in. An appeals court agreed.

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers appealed to the Supreme Court, saying the push for donor information had chilled its First Amendment rights.

“State attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle have been accused of misusing this authority to issue demands against their ideological and political opponents,” its lawyers wrote. “Even if these accusations turn out to be false, it is important that a federal forum exists for suits challenging those investigative demands.”.

Meanwhile, Platkin, a Democrat, has sought to enforce the subpoena in state court, but the judge there has so far refused the state’s push to require the group to turn over documents and told the two sides to negotiate instead.

The state asked the justices to pass on the case, saying the it doesn’t present the kind of significant lower-court controversy that requires the justices to step in.

“The decision below is correct and does not have the impacts petitioner alleges,” state attorneys wrote.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation has become a flashpoint in President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, pleaded not guilty Friday to human smuggling charges in a federal court in Tennessee.

The hearing was the first chance the Maryland construction worker has had in a U.S. courtroom to answer the Trump administration’s allegations since he was mistakenly deported in March to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have characterized the smuggling case as a desperate attempt to justify the mistaken deportation. The investigation was launched weeks after the U.S. government deported Abrego Garcia and following a Supreme Court order and mounting pressure to return him.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers told a judge Friday that some government witnesses cooperated to get favors regarding their immigration status or criminal charges they were facing. A federal agent acknowledged during his testimony that one witness was living in the U.S. illegally with a criminal record and is now getting preferred status.

“He sounds like the exact type of person this government should be trying to deport,” Federal Public Defender Dumaka Shabazz said. “They’re going to give all these other people deals to stay in the country just to get this one other person.”

Most of Friday’s hearing focused on whether Abrego Garcia should be released as he awaits trial. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes said she will write her decision “sooner rather than later.”

The smuggling charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. While officers suspected possible smuggling, Abrego Garcia was allowed to go on his way with only a warning.

Body camera footage shows a calm exchange between officers and Abrego Garcia. The officers then discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling before letting him go. One of the officers says, “He’s hauling these people for money.” Another says Abrego Garcia had $1,400 in an envelope.

The federal indictment accuses Abrego Garcia of smuggling throughout the U.S. hundreds of people living in the country illegally, including children and members of the violent MS-13 gang.

In briefings before Friday’s hearing, U.S. attorneys described Abrego Garcia as a danger to the community and a flight risk. They also accused him of trafficking drugs and firearms and of abusing the women he transported, among other claims, although he is not charged with such crimes.

Rob McGuire, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, told the judge Friday that “migrant transportation is inherently dangerous.”

The prosecutor also presented two orders of protection that Abrego Garcia’s wife sought in 2020 and 2021 against him for domestic violence. Jennifer Vasquez Sura said this spring that the couple had worked things out “privately as a family, including by going to counseling.”

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys rejected the prosecution’s assertions that he was a danger, while arguing the charges aren’t serious enough for detention.

A judge blocked New York City’s mayor from letting federal immigration authorities reopen an office at the city’s main jail, in part because of concerns the mayor invited them back in as part of a deal with the Trump administration to end his corruption case.

New York Judge Mary Rosado’s decision Friday is a setback for Democratic Mayor Eric Adams, who issued an executive order permitting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies to maintain office space at the Rikers Island jail complex. City lawmakers filed a lawsuit in April accusing Adams of entering into a “corrupt quid pro quo bargain” with the Trump administration in exchange for the U.S. Justice Department dropping criminal charges against him.

Rosado temporarily blocked the executive order in April. In granting a preliminary injunction, she said city council members have “shown a likelihood of success in demonstrating, at minimum, the appearance of a quid pro quo whereby Mayor Adams publicly agreed to bring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (”ICE”) back to Rikers Island in exchange for dismissal of his criminal charges.”

Rosado cited a number of factors, including U.S. border czar Tom Homan’s televised comments in February that if Adams did not come through, “I’ll be in his office, up his butt saying, ‘Where the hell is the agreement we came to?’ ”

Adams has repeatedly denied making a deal with the administration over the criminal case. He has said he deputized his first deputy mayor, Randy Mastro, to handle decision-making on the return of ICE to Rikers Island to make sure there was no appearance of any conflict of interest.

Rosado said that Mastro reports to Adams and “cannot be considered impartial and free from Mayor Adams’ conflicts.”

Mastro said in a prepared statement Friday the administration was confident they will prevail in the case. “Let’s be crystal clear: This executive order is about the criminal prosecution of violent transnational gangs committing crimes in our city. Our administration has never, and will never, do anything to jeopardize the safety of law-abiding immigrants, and this executive order ensures their safety as well,” Mastro said.

City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, who is running in the Democratic primary for mayor, called the decision a victory for public safety.

“New Yorkers are counting on our city to protect their civil rights, and yet, Mayor Adams has attempted to betray this obligation by handing power over our city to Trump’s ICE because he is compromised,” she said in a prepared statement.

A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S., siding with a group of Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the effort as unconstitutional.

The Republican president’s March 25 executive order sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline.

The attorneys general said the directive “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.” The White House defended the order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections” and called proof of citizenship a “commonsense” requirement.

Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said in Friday’s order that the states had a likelihood of success as to their legal challenges.

“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote.

Casper also noted that, when it comes to citizenship, “there is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship.”

Casper cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would “burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs” to update procedures.

The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump’s election order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form.

The order is the culmination of Trump’s longstanding complaints about elections. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” Since 2020, Trump has made false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines to explain his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

He has said his executive order secures elections against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it’s rare and typically a mistake. Casting a ballot as a noncitizen is already against the law and can result in fines and deportation if convicted.

The order also would require states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day and puts states’ federal funding at risk if election officials don’t comply. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Oregon and Washington, which conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, filed a separate lawsuit over the ballot deadline, saying the executive order could disenfranchise voters in their states. When the lawsuit was filed, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots in the state arrived after Election Day in 2024.

Trump’s order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls. But many legal experts say the order exceeds Trump’s power because the Constitution gives states the authority to set the “times, places and manner” of elections, with Congress allowed to set rules for elections to federal office. As Friday’s ruling states, the Constitution makes no provision for presidents to set the rules for elections.

During a hearing earlier this month on the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for the states and lawyers for the administration argued over the implications of Trump’s order, whether the changes could be made in time for next year’s midterm elections and how much it would cost the states.

Justice Department lawyer Bridget O’Hickey said during the hearing that the order seeks to provide a single set of rules for certain aspects of election operations rather than having a patchwork of state laws and that any harm to the states is speculation.

O’Hickey also claimed that mailed ballots received after Election Day might somehow be manipulated, suggesting people could retrieve their ballots and alter their votes based on what they see in early results. But all ballots received after Election Day require a postmark showing they were sent on or before that date, and that any ballot with a postmark after Election Day would not count.

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling President Donald Trump’s military intervention at protests over federal immigration policy in Los Angeles an assault on democracy and has sued to try to stop it. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is putting the National Guard on standby in areas in his state where demonstrations are planned.

The divergent approaches illustrate the ways the two parties are trying to navigate national politics and the role of executive power in enforcing immigration policies.

In his live TV address this week, Newsom said that Trump’s move escalated the situation — and for political gain.

All 22 other Democratic governors signed a statement sent by the Democratic Governors Association on Sunday backing Newsom, calling the Guard deployment and threats to send in Marines “an alarming abuse of power” that “undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.”

The protests in Los Angeles have mostly been contained to five blocks in a small section of downtown; nearly 200 people were detained on Tuesday and at least seven police officers have been injured.

In Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they’re planning to deploy military troops for protests.

Since Trump’s return to office, Democratic governors have been calculating about when to criticize him, when to emphasize common ground and when to bite their tongues.

The governors’ responses are guided partly by a series of political considerations, said Kristoffer Shields, director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University: How would criticizing Trump play with Democrats, Republicans and independent voters in their states? And for those with presidential ambitions, how does that message resonate nationally?

Democratic governors are weighing a number of considerations.

“There probably is some concern about retributions — what the reaction of the administration could be for a governor who takes a strong stance,” Shields said.

And in this case, polling indicates about half of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, though that polling was conducted before the recent military deployment.

On other issues, Democratic governors have taken a variety of approaches with Trump.

At a White House meeting in February, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills told Trump, “ we’ll see you in court ” over his push to cut off funding to the state because it allowed transgender athletes in girls’ school sports. Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, publicly sparred with Trump during his first term but this time around, has met with him privately to find common ground.

Initially, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green referred to Trump as a “straight-up dictator,” but the next month he told a local outlet that he was treading carefully, saying: “I’m not going to criticize him directly much at all.”

Democratic governors called to testify before a House panel Thursday on so-called sanctuary policies blasted the use of military troops in the Los Angeles area.

Gov. JB Pritzker said Illinois complies with all laws when it comes to immigration while honoring First Amendment rights. “We will not take away people’s rights to peacefully protest,” Pritzker said. “It’s wrong to deploy the National Guard and active duty Marines in an American city over the objection of local law enforcement just as it’s wrong to tear children away from their homes.”

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul told committee members that the focus should be on comprehensive immigration reform. “As we speak, an American city has been militarized over the objections of their governor,” she said. “This is a flagrant abuse of power and nothing short of an assault on our American values.”

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post, said Trump should not send troops to a weekend protest scheduled in Philadelphia.

“He’s injected chaos into the world order, he’s injected it into our economy, he is trying to inject chaos into our streets by doing what he did with the Guard in California,” Shapiro said.

As state attorney general during Trump’s first term, Shapiro routinely boasted that he sued Trump over 40 times and won each time. As governor he has often treaded more carefully, by bashing Trump’s tariffs, but not necessarily targeting Trump himself.

Protests that sprang up in Los Angeles over immigration enforcement raids and prompted President Donald Trump to mobilize National Guard troops and Marines have begun to spread across the country, with more planned into the weekend.

From Seattle and Austin to Chicago and Washington, D.C., marchers have chanted slogans, carried signs against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and snarled traffic through downtown avenues and outside federal offices. While many have been peaceful, some have resulted in clashes with law enforcement as officers made arrests and used chemical irritants to disperse crowds.

Activists are planning more and even larger demonstrations in the coming days, with “No Kings” events across the country on Saturday to coincide with Trump’s planned military parade through Washington.

The Trump administration said it would continue its program of raids and deportations despite the protests.

“ICE will continue to enforce the law,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem posted Tuesday on social media.

About 150 protesters gathered outside the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia on Tuesday afternoon and marched to ICE headquarters for speeches and then back to the detention center, according to Philadelphia police.

A group then walked though what police called major roads using bicycles to obstruct officers, prompting police to issue several orders for people to disperse. Police said demonstrators ignored the orders and things escalated when officers started arresting people.

Fifteen people were arrested, one on allegations of aggravated assault on police, and the rest for disorderly conduct, police said. Several officers used force during the arrests and their conduct will be reviewed, police said. Police didn’t say specifically what kind of force was used. Two officers had minor injuries and were treated at a hospital. Two females who were arrested reported minor injuries and were receiving medical attention, police said.

About 20 people remained peacefully gathered outside the detention center as of Tuesday night, police said. About 200 protesters gathered outside the San Francisco Immigration Court on Tuesday after activists said several arrests were made there.

That gathering came after protests on Sunday and Monday swelled to several thousand demonstrators and saw more than 150 arrests with outbreaks of violence that included vandalized buildings, and damaged cars, police vehicles and buses. Police said two officers suffered non-life threatening injuries.

“Individuals are always free to exercise their First Amendment rights in San Francisco, but violence, especially against SFPD officers, will never be tolerated,” San Francisco police posted on social media.

Police described Monday’s march as “overwhelmingly peaceful,” but said “two small groups broke off and committed vandalism and other criminal acts.” Several people were detained or arrested, police said.

Experienced Advocates in Labor and Employment Law

With years of experience representing both employees and employers, our firm has developed a comprehensive understanding of the legal challenges that arise in today’s workplaces. Our labor and employment attorneys provide strategic, personalized representation tailored to your specific circumstances.

We are passionate about protecting the rights of employees. If you’ve faced discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or any other form of workplace injustice, we are prepared to stand by you and pursue the justice you deserve.

We also advise employers on navigating the complex landscape of labor and employment law. From drafting employment agreements and enforcing non-compete clauses to ensuring compliance and resolving disputes, we offer practical, results-oriented legal support designed to protect your organization.

Our attorneys have successfully represented clients in both the public and private sectors across a wide range of employment matters, including:

-Wrongful termination and layoffs
-Workplace discrimination and harassment
-Promotion and advancement disputes
-Disciplinary actions
-Employment contract and severance negotiations
-Non-compete and confidentiality agreements
-Disability accommodations and related claims

Whether you're an individual seeking justice or a business seeking clarity, we are here to help.

Seo Law Group, PLLC
https://seolawgroup.com

A judge on Monday dismissed the lawsuit that actor and director Justin Baldoni filed against his “It Ends With Us” costar Blake Lively after she sued him last year for sexual harassment and retaliation.

U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Liman’s decision is the latest development in the bitter legal battle surrounding the dark romantic film.

Baldoni and production company Wayfarer Studios countersued in January for $400 million, accusing Lively and her husband, “Deadpool” actor Ryan Reynolds, of defamation and extortion.

The New York judge ruled that Baldoni can’t sue Lively for defamation over claims she made in her legal claim, because allegations made in a lawsuit are exempt from libel claims. Liman also ruled that Baldoni’s claims that Lively stole creative control of the film didn’t count as extortion under California law.

The judge, however, said Baldoni could revise the lawsuit if he wanted to pursue different claims related to whether Lively breached or interfered with a contract. His legal team indicated it planned to do so.

“Ms. Lively and her team’s predictable declaration of victory is false,” one of Baldoni’s lawyers, Bryan Freedman, said in a statement. He said that Lively’s claims that she was sexually harassed on the film set, and then subjected to a secret smear campaign intended to taint her reputation, were “no truer today than they were yesterday.”

“It Ends With Us,” an adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s bestselling 2016 novel that begins as a romance but takes a dark turn into domestic violence, was released in August, exceeding box office expectations with a $50 million debut. But the movie’s release was shrouded by speculation over discord between Lively and Baldoni.

The judge also dismissed Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, which had reported on Lively’s sexual harassment allegations.

“Today’s opinion is a total victory and a complete vindication for Blake Lively, along with those that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties dragged into their retaliatory lawsuit, including Ryan Reynolds, (publicist) Leslie Sloane and The New York Times,” Lively’s attorneys, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, said in a prepared statement.

The lawyers said they “look forward to the next round” of seeking attorneys’ fees, treble damages and punitive damages.

A spokesperson for The New York Times said they were “grateful to the court for seeing the lawsuit for what it was: a meritless attempt to stifle honest reporting.”

“Our journalists went out and covered carefully and fairly a story of public importance, and the court recognized that the law is designed to protect just that sort of journalism,” Charlie Stadtlander said in an emailed statement.

Lively appeared in the 2005 film “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants” and the TV series “Gossip Girl” from 2007 to 2012 before starring in films including “The Town” and “The Shallows.”

Baldoni starred in the TV comedy “Jane the Virgin,” directed the 2019 film “Five Feet Apart” and wrote “Man Enough,” a book challenging traditional notions of masculinity.